The Secretary of State was asked—

John Denham: I do not follow the connection between the main part of the hon. Lady's question and the second part. Fire plans are the responsibility of the fire and rescue authorities. The Audit Commission reviews those plans, as it reviews other things covered by the comprehensive performance assessment—of course, we are always in close contact with the Chief Fire Officers Association on those issues.

John McDonnell: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in protecting the lives of our constituents, firefighters provide a service that is second to none in this country, and we congratulate them—the number of them who have died in recent years is a tribute to the sacrifice that is made. The Secretary of State will be aware also of the recent dispute in South Yorkshire, which arose as a result of management seeking to impose new work schedules and conditions on firefighters, so will he join me in urging management to seek a negotiated settlement rather than provoking industrial action?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes a good point in a measured way. As I said earlier, there are various routes—he mentioned two, and there may even be others—that would lead to arbitration, mediation and conciliation, with the opportunity for both sides to find a way forward that avoids the need for industrial action.

Ian Austin: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the job that wardens do; they provide a crucial, valuable and, in many cases, life-saving service. I also pay tribute to all those who care for older people, including those providing floating support in the community. I assure him that we will keep this issue under very close review—as he knows, because only last week he was raising the concerns of people in his constituency in debate. On a general point, exactly how these services are provided should be a decision for local authorities, not dictated by me or by other Ministers in Whitehall.

Stephen Pound: I never thought that I would stand here and say that I agree entirely with the points made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I do—although I have to say that in Ealing, North we have heroes and heroines. May I ask my hon. Friend to make every endeavour not to repeat the compulsory competitive tendering mistakes of the past and to recognise the importance of added value in terms of individuals' quality of life and health? I urge him to take that into consideration during the review.

Paul Goodman: As the Minister has said, there was a useful debate on this matter last week in Westminster Hall. As well as paying tribute to the work of wardens, does he agree with Imogen Parry of ERoSH—the Essential Role of Sheltered Housing—who said:
	"Many residents are pleased with changes that have been made to their support services, including a move away from resident warden services, particularly...when they have been fully involved in the process"?
	Does he agree that it is consultation, first, last and always, that matters with elderly and vulnerable residents?

Ian Austin: I know that this is a controversial issue in Shropshire, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to turn it into a party political row, especially since my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) has been working just as hard as he has to represent constituents on this subject. Just because we do not have a blanket policy on buffer zones in England, it does not mean that the impact on nearby housing and other environmental matters are not taken into account during the planning process—in fact, they are the key issues that are considered.

John Denham: It is quite understandable that people look at these issues from a local point of view and at questions about what communities want to see in an area, but I say to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will explain this to her constituents—that we need to ensure that we have sufficient land for housing, growth, economic development and jobs for the future. That cannot be a purely local decision; it must have regional and national elements. I hope that she is not joining with the incredibly damaging position of Conservative Front Benchers in saying, "Jobs don't matter. Housing doesn't matter. Growth doesn't matter." All they want is local populism. There are difficult choices to be made, and we need political parties in this country that, unlike the party opposite, will face up to those difficult choices.

Joan Walley: Given the curtailed debate last week on clause 67 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, will the Secretary of State ensure that planning guidance to the new regional development agencies on the regional strategic strategies will give weight to environmental as well as economic concerns?

John Denham: I tell the hon. Gentleman that it was not me but the chief executive of Taylor Wimpey who described his party's policies as "scary as hell"—I hope that that does not breach any parliamentary code—because of the uncertainty being created. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has made available significant additional new money to kick-start private sector housing schemes and to get new social housing under way—all measures that his party has opposed in saying that our Department's budget should be cut and that there should be no fiscal stimulus. He cannot criticise our record, and he has to admit that he would do far, far less.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman knows from the strength of my previous answers why I think that that would be absolutely disastrous. If the policy put forward by his spokesman were put into practice—the policy of abandoning the strategies and failing to make available the land needed to house families in this country or to create the possibility of jobs or economic development—it would be an absolute disaster. I will do everything that I can to prevent that from coming about.

Stewart Jackson: On 11 July 2007, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"I assure the House that we will continue robustly to protect the land designated as green belt."—[ Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1450.]
	The day before, his official spokesman told the Lobby:
	"We are not proposing any changes to our very robust protection of the green belt."
	Why then are regional spatial strategies, which are signed off by Ministers, currently deleting the green belt across the whole country?

Peter Kilfoyle: Is the Minister aware that, despite the long waiting lists for housing in Liverpool, the city council, which holds no housing stock itself, has made no application under the rules? It has, however, recently managed to appoint a new assistant executive director of housing at a salary of £102,000 a year, plus a 10 per cent. bonus. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is in the spirit that the Government are trying to foster in relation to accommodating people in need of housing? Does he also agree that it is typical of Lib Dem authorities?

John Healey: We expect local authorities to assess the demand for housing as part of their strategic role. As part of trying to encourage the building of the homes that we need, and of getting the country through the recession, I was able to put together an extra £1.5 billion over this year and next to build the affordable homes that we need in this country. I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the Yorkshire region is already benefiting from more than £63 million.

John Healey: The £63 million that I have been able to release since June for affordable homes in Yorkshire and the Humber will lead to 6,000 extra affordable homes, and I hope that there will be more to come. The housing need there, as in other regions across the country, requires the Government to play their part alongside the private sector, if we are to see the affordable homes that we need being built.

John Healey: Last month, I announced that all future rounds of funding for house building in this country—under the new housing pledge and the affordable housing programme—will require those taking the Government grant to have in place apprenticeship schemes. This means that, over this year and next, we will be able to create an additional 3,000 apprenticeship places across the country.

Justine Greening: The Minister says she is concerned about the impact on small companies, but a report from Westminster city council today includes a survey showing that one in three businesses facing large rates rises believe that they will go bust as a result of them—with a devastating effect on jobs and communities. Nationally, there are 700,000 companies, most of them small ones, facing rates rises; what assessment has the Minister made of how many of them will go bust as a result? If Westminster city council can do it, why cannot she?

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for that response, but it has been estimated that unelected quangos now spend £64 billion a year—equivalent to more than £2,500 for every single household. Why are the Government so reluctant to fulfil their pledge and allow local spending reports to publish figures on quango expenditure in local areas?

Christopher Fraser: Does the Minister accept that the Government's proposals will place a financial burden on all households in Norfolk for something which—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out—local people simply do not want and do not need?

Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with Wirral Borough Council on its proposals to transfer assets to community ownership.

Shahid Malik: This is an important development, which is why, between 2007 and 2011, we shall have invested £5 million in it. A number of organisations are supporting Wirral, including Community Matters and the Development Trust Association. All those organisations can provide access to practical advice and guidance, as well as links to other organisations throughout the country and case studies.
	I understand that Wirral has made it clear that it is prepared to consider undertaking capital works to upgrade buildings and providing revenue support thereafter, but if my hon. Friend continues to be concerned, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the matter.

Ian Austin: It is a great shame that the Opposition take every possible opportunity to argue against proposals for housing, growth, strengthening the economy and taking Britain out of recession. They ought to be using this Question Time to explain why the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that she would revoke the regional spatial strategies, why she urged Conservative town halls—even before the passing of primary legislation—

John Denham: I want to ensure that local authorities have the ability to respond to local needs without unnecessary bureaucracy, so today we are publishing our proposals to allow councils and their communities to make certain byelaws without seeking Government approval, and to have them enforced through fixed penalty notices. I will also consult on proposals to repeal or streamline more than half the consent regimes—regimes whereby councils have to seek my Department's permission before acting.

Chris McCafferty: Given the purchase yesterday of HBOS Employee Equity Solutions by Computershare, will the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber—the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—who has done excellent work saving jobs in the Calder valley, give me an assurance that all employees affected will be transferred under TUPE arrangements?

Paul Burstow: Council tenants in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park pay about a third of their rent to the Government in the form of a subsidy, but the only thing they get for that is the prospect of Decent Homes funding. Some £120 million was promised to their council to pay for upgrading, improvement and renovation of their homes, but that money is no longer on the table. Will the Minister meet me, as well as a number of my constituents who are council tenants, to discuss whether that money can be put back on the table, so that those much-needed renovations can get under way?

Neil Turner: There is widespread agreement that the housing revenue account system is not fit for purpose, so I give the review that is under way a warm welcome. The Treasury has proposed taking an extra £7 billion dowry from councils, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that would prevent them from implementing the Decent Homes standard, and that it could be seen as a tax on council house tenants?

Lorely Burt: The panel appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the west midlands regional spatial strategy has now reported. In my constituency of Solihull, we had an agreed new homes target of 7,600, but now we find that that target is 10,500. That will almost certainly mean that we will have to lose great swathes of our green belt. Will the right hon. Gentleman describe how it is desirable, or even possible, to override the plans and wishes of Solihull's—

John Denham: As I have tried to make clear a number of times this afternoon, the examination process means that local plans that take only the local perspective into account have to be tested against regional and national housing need. The examination process takes place in public, and when revisions are made it is because the evidence in favour of the need to provide land for housing wins out. It is difficult to conceive of a different system. The only possible alternative would involve the abandonment of any national or regional targets, but that would undoubtedly lead to a massive collapse in house building and a massive under-provision—

Sarah Teather: Does the Secretary of State accept that if his Government go ahead and scrap the £15 excess payments of local housing allowance, all that will result is rent inflation and no savings to the public purse? Will he agree to work with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to rethink the proposal?

Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have already given you notice of this point of order, which concerns the transfer by Departments of oral questions after they have been printed on the Order Paper, after the Department has been recognised as having departmental responsibility, and after approval by the Table Office—I realise that that is not a foolproof service. Last week I tabled an oral question to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which appeared on the Order Paper on Wednesday 21 October as Question 2. By Thursday the question had been withdrawn and transferred to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. My question was about local authority care homes and the security of those in their care. I need your help, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there is a way in which, before oral questions are shuffled, the relevant Department's parliamentary team can see the list and transfer any question at that point. However, once a question is printed on the Order Paper for oral answer, I believe that the Department should be stopped from denying responsibility to answer.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been mention outside the House, as you know, of senior Ministers in the House of Lords answering questions from Members of this House. There has been no discussion whatsoever in the House, but some of us have followed with interest the discussion that has occurred. I take it that if such questioning of senior Ministers who are Members of the House of Lords took place—obviously there would have to be a debate in the House first—it would be in Westminster Hall, and certainly not in this Chamber. If such a procedure took place, there should be no stopping the Department concerned from being subject to questions in the ordinary way, or of replies to questions from being given by Ministers who are Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: That is a most interesting point of order from the hon. Gentleman, but there are quite a lot of ifs in it. What I must say to him is that he will be aware both that this is a matter under active consideration—I am happy to confirm that—and that it has also been the subject of an earlier point of order, not least raised the other day, if memory serves me, by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), to which I had the opportunity to reply.
	I can say to the hon. Gentleman not what form a change would take, but that the issue is under active consideration and that before any change were made, the House would of course have an opportunity to consider it. I feel sure that he would want to contribute to that consideration.

David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows: first, my understanding is that he—I am being very helpful to him, so he should be pleased with this—was advised that the risk of the transfer of his question was low. It is true enough that the Table Office is not able to offer, and never has done, a guarantee that a question will not be transferred. He was advised that the risk was low, but the risk nevertheless existed, and risk is that of the hon. Gentleman, not that of the Table Office.
	Secondly, there is no current plan to adopt the change of policy that the hon. Gentleman wants. It is a matter that could be considered by the Procedure Committee and a request to that Committee could be made by any Member. I just have a hunch that he might want to be in the queue to make that request.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a named day question of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for answer yesterday—the question, quite simply, was what planning controls there are on the erection of mobile telephone masts—so that I could follow it up today at oral questions. Instead of getting a proper response, I got this:
	"I will answer this question shortly",
	which of course would be too late for today's Question Time. Are you able to help me, Mr. Speaker, in getting proper answers on time?

Tom Harris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on public bodies to co-operate with the police and specified local authorities on the use of closed circuit television; to require certain users of CCTV to provide specified information to the police; to require insurance providers to promote the use of CCTV systems; and for connected purposes.
	There has been and continues to be much debate surrounding the operation of CCTV systems in the UK, and it is a debate that we should welcome. However, I do not want to use this opportunity today to discuss the politics of Big Brother; rather I want to move the issue forward to how we can best regulate these systems and use them to provide legitimate protection of the public and of property, while at the same time ensuring that our civil liberties are protected.
	It is estimated that there could be as many as 1.5 million privately operated CCTV cameras in operation in the UK today, plus another 400 publicly operated systems in operation in town and city centres. It is evident from that that CCTV is a fact of modern life and it is here to stay. The Bill provides proposals to ensure that the systems are used to their best purpose, which is to act as deterrents of crime and aids to prosecution.
	No compulsory code or set of minimum requirements is laid down for the operation and maintenance of CCTV systems in the UK. That can cause particular problems for some police investigations in which CCTV footage is used as evidence, in particular for crimes that would be difficult to prove by any other means. While CCTV could and should never be an alternative to policing or crime prevention schemes, evidence suggests that it can and does bring forward prosecutions in cases where it may have been difficult to do so otherwise.
	Public systems already have a primary purpose to provide public safety, and there is a need for those systems to be equipped to the levels suitable to provide recordings of a high enough quality to be used as evidence of crime. In Greater Glasgow, the Glasgow community and safety services oversee the use of CCTV systems in those public places to which there is unrestricted access, as well as co-ordinating action by the police, local authorities and major social landlords.
	Despite that co-ordination, the cost of each fixed camera runs at between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, a total to which local authorities are not obliged to contribute. There are 16 separate public systems in use in Greater Glasgow, and Strathclyde police must contend with that. The different equipment and processes for each system make evidence gathering a lengthy procedure. Alongside that, all evidence submitted to the courts must operate under an analogue rather than a digital system.
	Private systems which operate on private property that allows for a public presence, such as large bars and shopping centres, are usually put in place as property protection measures. As the number of systems is so vast, private recordings provide the majority of evidence in incidents of crime. The use of CCTV evidence is now a much more common means of pursuing prosecution in the UK; more so than the use of DNA material, for example. Its use as evidence results in more guilty verdicts, easing the burden on police time and the public purse by way of less expensive trials.
	Recorded evidence can also help to prompt witnesses who may not have been aware that they were in the vicinity of a crime at the time, but who may hold crucial evidence. Another important aspect is that CCTV can be used to eliminate innocent people from police investigations, speeding up the overall process and lowering the cost. Yet, when dealing with a serious incident in which CCTV footage needs to be examined, police forces can and often do face an array of problems with the quality and accessibility of the footage that they require.
	The lack of regulation means that, when dealing with a serious incident, police have to contact all public and private owners in the area. That is, first, to identify any owners of CCTV systems and, secondly, to check for footage worthy of submission as evidence. Problems also occur with the routine destruction of film. Police forces are unaware of how long owners keep their footage before it is destroyed, and the owners are not required to provide such information on a regular basis. That means that some evidence might be destroyed before the police can access it.
	Some owners of small or more basic systems are not familiar with the mechanisms required to download data, for example, and in some instances it can take weeks to obtain the film evidence required. With some systems, the cameras do not work at all and no evidence can therefore be obtained. The problems caused by such disparities can directly affect the ability of the police to arrest perpetrators and bring forward a case for prosecution.
	It would not be particularly burdensome to require those who operate CCTV systems to have to meet a set of standards of best practice and general maintenance, particularly when most of the private organisations that would be required to do so are likely already to be regulated by the local authority in some way.
	For small businesses in particular, there is an issue regarding insurance. Some insurers require owners of CCTV systems to avoid undue bureaucracy and administrative expense. The Bill makes provision for that. Building on the recommendations of a recent Home Office report for a national CCTV strategy, the Bill proposes a voluntary code for businesses promoted by the CCTV user group, which would act as an industry body.
	The Bill would impose a statutory duty on public bodies, such as local authorities, transport groups and housing associations, to work with local police forces to streamline public CCTV systems and, importantly, to impose a duty on local authorities to contribute to the costs of co-ordinating such systems. That would on the whole, provide greater efficiency and reduce administrative costs.
	Large metropolitan authorities would no longer be required to foot the full bill for the co-ordinating of such systems when other smaller local authorities would be required to contribute. The Bill would also impose a duty on private organisations that control large areas open to the public in which they operate private CCTV operations, such as bars, clubs, cinemas and shopping centres, to provide local police with up-to-date information on the type of system they use, for how long they preserve film and how their system is maintained.
	Lastly, the Bill would impose a requirement for insurance companies to promote an agreed code of practice with their business customers. CCTV can have a positive impact on the fight against crime and the fear of crime, but if we are to maintain the public's confidence in CCTV, we have a duty to reassure our citizens that such monitoring is not only effective but worth the investment.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Tom Harris, Mrs. Joan Humble, David Cairns, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Derek Twigg, Lembit Öpik, Norman Lamb and Meg Munn present the Bill.
	Mr. Tom Harris accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 November and to be printed (Bill 153).

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 31, page 2, line 26, leave out 'contribution to the achievement of' and insert 'furthering of'.
	Amendment 25, in clause 12, page 8, line 10, leave out from 'capacity' to the end of line 13 and insert 'of less than 1MW.'.
	Amendment 26, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out from 'capacity' to the end of line 15 and insert 'of less than 1MW.'.
	Amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 229, line 18, leave out paragraph (1) and insert—
	'(1) The MMO shall pay such remuneration and allowances as are commensurate with those of directly employed DEFRA employees.
	(1A) The MMO shall negotiate staff remuneration and allowances with the recognised trade unions.'.
	Amendment 46, page 229, line 23, leave out from 'The' to end of line 25 and insert—
	'MMO shall—
	(a) pay allowances or gratuities as it may determine to or in respect of any person who is or has been an employee of the MMO;
	(ab) ensure that all current and future MMO staff are entitled to membership of the civil service pension scheme;'.
	Government amendment 4.

Richard Benyon: Here we are at the last stage of the marathon passage of this Bill—well, we hope that it is the last stage, but that is of course dependent on another place. Hopefully, we will co-operate and get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible.
	Amendments 30 and 31 seek to address an imbalance in the Bill between clauses 2 and 44. The Minister will remember the lengthy debate that we had on this subject in Committee. I am sure that I do not need to remind him or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that our amendment 9 was successful in Committee in changing the wording of clause 44 from "contributing to" to "furthering", which is why the imbalance exists.
	Owing to the way in which amendments 1 and 2 to clause 2 were grouped in Committee, they were not voted on, but I think that the Minister will agree that, on that issue, the voice of the Committee had spoken. It was unfortunate that amid the parliamentary process, the Committee was largely unaware that it was voting on only one group of amendments. I am aware that the Government seek to overturn the changes that amendment 9 made in Committee, and the Minister will explain his reasoning and I shall listen with interest. However, I must tell him that I feel very strongly about this issue, and I shall return to it in a moment.
	The point has been repeated, on numerous occasions and from all parts of the House, that the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to introduce a landmark piece of legislation on important conservation measures that will take us closer to a sustainable future for our oceans and the communities that they support. This legislation has the potential to be groundbreaking, and that is the basis on which we seek to make the amendments before us. Sustainable development is an important concept and the key to how we move forward on fisheries management and planning. We believe that "contribution to" suggests a finite involvement in sustainable development and simply does not go far enough. "Furthering" would signify a continuous effort to achieve sustainable development, and that is what is needed for the effective management of, and planning for, our seas.
	Some will say that I am playing with semantics, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, words mean everything when we structure legislation. It will be revisited in many generations' time, long after we have left the House. Indeed, yesterday, we debated legislation that was dated 1771, and I hope that the legislation before us, even if it does not have that longevity, will certainly be important in future generations. It is vital that we get the wording right, not just because the Bill may be open to challenge from various sources, but because of the message that we must send out. I shall return to that point, too.
	Our amendments would ensure that the Marine Management Organisation had a sufficiently robust objective: to be responsible for furthering, rather than making a contribution to the achievement of, sustainable development. As I said in Committee, the MMO is marketed as the one-stop-shop for marine management, and as such it must take a leading rather than a contributory role in sustainable development.
	Several hon. Members, some of whom are present, pointed out that the Bill had first-class legislative scrutiny, and I agree that the Joint Committee produced an excellent document. It is worth looking at recommendation 12, on page 95 of its report, which states that
	"clear duties should be set out on the face of the Bill to ensure that the new organisation"—
	the MMO—
	"works to meet the aspirations which Parliament has set for it. We recommend that these include a duty to further sustainable development and we suggest that this be based on the ecosystem approach to managing the marine environment."
	The Joint Committee could not have been clearer in that excellent piece of work. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), were party to that document, and I urge the Minister to consider it in the context of this argument.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments; he puts my point of view very well. As I said, the wording matters. This provision is at the very start of the Bill, and it sets out the duties and obligations of an organisation that we are creating to be, in the words used in the House of Lords, the standard bearer for our seas. If we give it a weakened duty, we diminish the organisation and send out entirely the wrong message.
	Amendments 25 and 26 are worthy of comment. They would lower the threshold for the number of energy projects that will be overseen by the MMO, rather than by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, from 100 MW to 1 MW. That would allow the IPC to take decisions on the majority of marine renewable projects, leaving only a very small segment to the MMO. As I made clear in Committee, we believe that the MMO should have available the necessary expertise and resources to decide on a full range of marine activities. I have tabled another amendment—I will return to it in a moment—that seeks to strengthen the MMO's knowledge base. It is crucial that the MMO is used to provide advice and direction on marine and coastal applications for energy projects that impact on the marine environment if it is to live up to its potential role as the standard bearer for our seas.
	It is no secret that Conservative Members are no great fans of the IPC. All sorts of interested parties, bodies and organisations get involved in the planning process on land, and the IPC is a new addition to that mix. We have doubts about its democratic accountability. That is its main problem on land, and it is even further removed from the interests of sea users. We do not want more powers to be sucked away from the MMO by the IPC even before the new organisation's vesting date. I will listen to comments made on the amendments, but as things stand I do not feel inclined to support them.
	The two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) are interesting because they refer to staffing issues in the new organisation. I will listen very carefully to his points. Several people are extremely unhappy about the way in which the Marine and Fisheries Agency is migrating towards the MMO. There are extremely difficult questions of morale to be addressed. Back in May, the website had a page advertising for a new chief executive; those details are still there today. I am keen to meet this new chief executive, whoever he or she may be, as well as the new chairman, who is probably an excellent person—certainly so on the basis of his CV, which I have read. I wish them well. Nevertheless, why do we not have a chief executive in place? Is there some legislative barrier, or is it merely because the right person cannot be found? I hope that the Minister will address that key point.
	The Minister's decision to locate the new headquarters on Tyneside may or may not have been right; I have no comment to make on that. However, I know that a great many staff do not want to move to the new headquarters. I gather that of the 200 or so people in the organisation, 10—known as the Tyneside 10—have agreed to move. I hope that the Minister can tell us that more people have decided to do so, because we need their expertise and knowledge if the organisation is to hit the ground running with good morale, a good sense of purpose and clearly defined duties. What about the people who work at the 18 coastal locations? I understand that they will not be transferred in their existing civil servant posts. Perhaps the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will tease out some of the answers.
	I know that there is considerable unhappiness in the organisation, and it is in the interests of all of us that the move is done properly and that any problems created by how it has been handled are rectified. We need that so that we have people of real expertise, knowledge and drive ready to start work immediately, and so that the organisation can hit the ground running at its vesting date, which I understand is still planned to be April.
	Amendment 39 builds on our attempts in Committee to expand the skills that the new organisation will be able to call on. It is intended to ensure that the MMO is given adequate access to specialist knowledge in order to carry out its diverse range of functions. We raised the issue of expertise in the MMO in Committee, pushing for a chief engineering adviser to be appointed alongside a chief scientific adviser. Our amendment was unsuccessful, but we hope that the appropriate range of expertise will be housed in the MMO. If that is not achieved, amendment 39 would ensure that it could source advice and guidance from other bodies that had the expertise that it was lacking.
	Furthermore, it is important that the MMO has the capacity to process the often very technical information that it needs to carry out its functions. Many marine users are concerned that the MMO may not have the understanding of the diverse range of issues affecting the marine environment that it needs to manage it effectively. It is therefore important to ensure not only that consultation occurs but that information is shared and expertise pooled. There are no added cost implications at this stage—

Martin Salter: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), whose arguments I listened to carefully today and in Committee. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to my comments. Having been incredibly helpful to him yesterday, I am mindful to be slightly less helpful today. I, and my colleagues who similarly failed to support the Government on this issue in Committee, have problems standing on our heads. I do not seek to speak for my colleagues, but myself and others—I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—were members of the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill. As we have said, the Bill has been extensively scrutinised, and I would like to think that the Government's response to how this excellent Bill can be made into a brilliant Bill will weigh in the balance some of the wise recommendations that came out of that pre-legislative scrutiny exercise conducted with Members of the other place.
	On the Joint Committee's report, I remind the Minister of those who have argued the "furthering" case, and I am a signed-up member of the "furthering" tendency. Page 22 of the report states:
	"The Environment Agency argued that the MMO should have a duty to further conservation of marine flora and fauna and to secure compliance with the Water Framework Directive requirements and objectives in transitional and coastal waters."
	On the same page, the Joint Committee recommended:
	"We have no doubt, from the weight of the evidence received, that the statement of purpose of the MMO is ambiguous both in terms of the draft Bill and in the policy framework which the Government envisages."
	I do not think that any of us would want to put our names to this groundbreaking and long-awaited piece of legislation if it had any ambiguity in it, particularly in respect of such a fundamental component of delivery, which the MMO must surely be. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, the final recommendation stated quite clearly that we should include a duty to further sustainable development.
	My problem with why the Government find that difficult concerns the lawyers' argument that it would not be compatible with 70 other pieces of legislation. Hang on a moment! Are we in this place to make legislation that is only compatible with legislation that went before? If that is the case, how do we ever establish precedents? How do we ever move the policy agenda on? I am concerned about the future of our seas, certainly in terms of generating a sustainable harvest of fish for the planet to feed on and benefit from. There might be only 50 years of life left in the oceans if mankind carries on exploiting them at the current rate. We must also consider the impact of climate change and population growth. All those factors tell me that I do not want to listen too carefully to arguments from lawyers about precedents concerning 70 other bits of legislation that go back to God knows when.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), has been superb throughout consideration of the Bill, but—here is a challenge for him—I need him to be even more superb and come up with some very convincing arguments, if he is to tempt me to follow him into the Lobby.

Andrew George: I, too, rise to speak in favour of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), although I shall make a few comments on other amendments in passing. He suggested that the debate might be interpreted as a semantic one about the difference between "contribution to" and "furthering". He also suggested that people might not necessarily know the difference. Fundamentally, "contribution to" suggests that the MMO might play a subordinate role to others, but I think that in most people's minds, "furthering" indicates the concept of the MMO making a significant, leading contribution.
	If the argument is that the difference between contributing and furthering is merely a semantic issue, it should be no skin off the Government's nose simply to accept the amendments, arguing that the difference between the two expressions is semantic in any case. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments, including the well-argued case that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter).
	Given the efforts and the contributions made in establishing the Bill—the work in the Joint Committees, the campaigning and the strong public support—it is clear that the Government are being sent a message. I hope that they will be receptive to that message, although they do not seem to be very receptive at the moment. The MMO needs a firm steer, not simply a limp expression of warm hope, which is what the Bill appears to be giving with the words "contributing to". I hope that the Government are receptive to that and to strengthening the clear intention in the Bill for the MMO to take a much more significant role than that suggested by "contributing to".
	As I said, the current wording raises a number of questions. If the relevant authority is making a contribution towards the "achievement of sustainable development", one must ask whether that is a leading contribution, and if not, who is making the leading contribution? Is that contribution a significant contribution, and if not, will it in fact be an insignificant contribution, without any assessment of its value? It may be a contribution, but frankly it might not make a great deal of difference. There is nothing in the explanatory notes to indicate who else will be contributing towards the achievement of sustainable development. At the end of the day, some serious questions arise as a result of the Bill's warm but rather weak wording on the consideration of the fundamental objectives of the MMO.
	The explanatory notes make it clear that sustainable development, as Ministers perpetually remind us, has three core elements. Paragraph 46 says:
	"This may be necessary to ensure that an appropriate balance between environmental, social and economic considerations is reached".
	Therefore, not only does the Bill refer to the contribution made towards the achievement of sustainable development, but the environmental goals that underpin this important legislation make it clear that that means a contribution towards a three-pronged balance in any case—an important balance, as I argued in debate only yesterday. I hope that the Ministers will reflect on the strong feelings that resulted in a Government defeat in Committee. I hope, too, that the Government will not be churlish enough to press their amendment 4, because in effect they would thereby be showing disrespect to the considered views expressed in Committee, when the issue was given very close scrutiny.
	In passing, let me say that I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The letter that has been circulated between him and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raises questions about the reassurances that I have received about the transfer of undertakings to members of staff who move from the Marine and Fisheries Agency to the MMO. The wording of the letter does not provide the reassurance that the staff who are being transferred have a right to expect. I wish the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington well in his efforts in that regard.
	I will listen to the views of those who have tabled amendments 25 and 26, but I am not yet convinced that a strong argument has been made for effectively handing over planning powers to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I have some concerns about the potential impact of those amendments, because the specialist knowledge that will be held by the Marine Management Organisation cannot simply be put aside, which is what would happen if the amendments were to be accepted. I hope that the Government have listened to my points.

Alan Whitehead: I shall address my remarks to amendments 30 and 31 and Government amendment 4, in particular. Government amendment 4 seeks to restore the status quo ante following the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee, at which the meaning of "furthering" was discussed. At the time, I suggested that it might be a good idea to look at the provisions in paragraph 7 of schedule 5 to the Bill concerning sustainability appraisals, and at the extent to which the issue might be resolved—for this Bill, without any read-across to other legislation—by amending that schedule to make clear the points that we were discussing. Such an amendment might also make clear the intentions of the Bill on sustainability, particularly in the context of sustainability appraisals. At the time, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said that that was a good suggestion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said:
	"I commend the approach outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test." ——[ Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 19.]
	I note that more in sorrow than in anger.
	When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) replies to the debate today, she might like to put on record the reason why that approach has not been examined to the extent that it might have been, although I appreciate the efforts that both Ministers have made to find the best approach, following our debate in Committee. I do not think that they have failed to take careful note of what was set out in Committee, or to exercise proper diligence in following up inquiries on the outcome of the votes taken in Committee.
	Instead, this is a question of how the particular wording of the amendment tabled in Committee—and alternative wordings—fits in with wider issues in other legislation. It is also a question of the extent to which amendments already made to the Bill strengthen and underpin the sustainability aims in the first place. I am willing to be persuaded this afternoon that restitution of the status quo ante—if it has been undertaken—has been based on a clear examination of all the alternatives and how they fit into the wider aims and how the Bill sits with other legislation. That is not a nugatory point, because the way in which it fits in with other legislation is important.
	Although it is certainly true that we are shaping legislation that departs substantially from the past, it is nevertheless the case that the Bill's proper reference to other legislation is a necessary part of its success as a piece of legislation. If it can be genuinely shown that that is indeed a major consideration, I, for one, would be happy to say that a proper examination, as was undertaken in Committee, had been carried out, which would explain why the Bill has the outcomes that it does.
	I expect that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to do that—or something like it—in her summing up, which I will listen to carefully. It is necessary for her comments to be placed very carefully on the record on Report, so that we are all clear about this matter.

Alan Whitehead: No, that was not the first time I have heard that. I have discussed this and associated matters with my hon. Friend the Minister on several occasions—and, as I have emphasised this afternoon, I am happy that he has applied due diligence to the undertakings that he gave in Committee to look carefully at the alternatives that had been suggested and then present proposals based on that careful examination.
	I hope and expect that this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to reflect those considerations when she replies to the debate, but if that does not happen, I fear that we shall return to the position that pertained in Committee. It was clear that a number of Members on both sides of the Committee were not convinced by the argument that had been advanced about the exact wording of the Bill. Some wanted a different wording, while others wanted provisions elsewhere in the Bill to be amended to enable the wider sustainability objective to be underlined. If, and only if, that objective can be underpinned and those pillars can be set up this afternoon, I will be happy with a wording that reflects the intention of the Government amendments.
	Amendments 25 and 26 seek to reduce the point at which the Marine Management Organisation has an overview of applications for offshore energy projects, effectively—although the Bill does not actually say this—from 100 MW to 1 MW. Members have already expressed concern that that might strip the MMO of the ability to give serious consideration to an essential component of marine environment management—offshore energy installations. I personally consider that concern to be misplaced, not because it is not a proper concern, but because of the way in which offshore energy is developing.
	I think we all know that prospects for the development of offshore energy, overwhelmingly that of offshore wind power, are enormous and potentially glowing. We are already the leading country in the world in offshore energy installation, and there are substantial plans in the pipeline and on the drawing board for the installation of up to about 30 GW in the medium and long term. We are now in phase 3 of the licensing arrangements for offshore zones for the installation of wind farms. With the emergence of each of those arrangements—from phase 1 to phase 3, and including the revisiting of phase 2 in relation to additional licensing—the size, ambition and extent of those offshore wind installations have increased.
	Phase 1 licensing involved the development fairly close to the shore of a relatively small number of turbines, each of which was also, by current marine standards, of a relatively modest size. Both the commissioning and building of further developments, such as the London Array and the licensing of deeper sea offshore wind as we move into phase 3 licensing, indicate that the number of turbines per wind farm and the size of those turbines are increasing substantially. We can draw two conclusions as to what that means in relation to the planning regime for offshore wind in particular. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) may have a fair number of comments to make about marine current technology and wave technology, and I shall not intrude on what I suspect he will say, except to note that an enhancement in size will not be the pattern followed in those technologies, at least in the immediate future. Indeed, it is likely that a number of those technologies will in the foreseeable future be well below the 100 MW limit, and will therefore come within the purview of the MMO under the terms of the Bill at present.
	It is, however, extremely unlikely that in the immediate future many, if any, applications for offshore wind in the marine environment will come before the MMO, for the simple reason that the clock would be turned back in terms of the development of offshore wind if there were a number of applications below 100 MW—which amounts to perhaps 10 to 15 turbines under current arrangements—which would come within the purview of the MMO. Overwhelmingly, those applications will therefore come within the remit of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The IPC will therefore have to be properly geared up to assess the planning processes for future offshore wind applications and the detailed considerations relating to the marine environment to which those planning processes give rise.
	The issue is not so much that the IPC will not know what it is doing in relation to offshore wind, and that there will therefore be a problem if it is given most of the planning remit for future offshore wind, but that there will, in theory at least, be two bodies geared up to have detailed knowledge of offshore wind, one of which will have a large number of applications before it and one of which will have no applications before it. What does that mean in terms of the consenting regime for offshore wind? Will it parallel the regime for onshore wind?
	For the foreseeable future, the vast majority—indeed, probably all—onshore wind applications will be below the level that would bring them before the IPC, and local authorities will still be concerned with the planning regime. As we know, however, there are no local authorities for the marine environment. There is one landlord of the sea bed. A number of important considerations have to be taken into account, but they are not parallel with those for onshore wind.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, to the extent that it would be possible to say that the whole offshore wind consenting regime should fall under the MMO's purview. That would result in a parallel IPC for offshore matters in some instances, to go alongside the IPC's onshore role in major infrastructure planning considerations and major national strategic inquiries. I suggest that if he were to go down that route—although he may have it in mind not to do so, because he is not too keen on the idea of the IPC in the first place—the interesting logical considerations of making the non-existent IPC responsible for offshore as well as onshore decisions might cause his synapses to fuse. Assuming that there was a logical consideration, that the IPC would continue, and that it would not have any responsibility for very large offshore marine installations, we would be in danger, in the opposite way, of creating two parallel planning problems.
	That is because offshore wind involves not only the installation of wind turbines, but the cabling that takes the turbines to land, the landing facilities on the land itself and, to a considerable extent, the grid structure that takes whatever is landed properly into the national grid. As hon. Members also know, the National Grid Company is pursuing a strategy for 2020 to strengthen the national grid substantially, precisely to take on board those strategic aspects of landing. Currently, point-to-point arrangements are in place, but my view is that they will develop into cluster arrangements in due course. If we are talking about integration, getting all that right, both from the land and from the sea, could be an integrated function for the IPC.
	Going down the route suggested by hon. Gentleman, whereby a series of large applications is considered by the MMO but as soon as the land is involved they are considered by the IPC, could result in a dangerous division in our consideration arrangements, particularly in terms of the overall picture of the sea, the land and the energy supply. The opposite view, which is that it probably would be a good idea to try to integrate the planning regime for offshore wind energy management as far as possible, precisely because of those considerations, probably represents the better way forward—so long as one agrees that the IPC should continue at all.

Alan Whitehead: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not see a contradiction between making the IPC responsible for planning major strategic offshore developments and incorporating those developments in marine and national planning statements, as those statements should define the framework within which the IPC, the MMO or any other body undertakes such work. The important point about the Severn barrage, offshore wind energy generation and the land side of offshore wind is that how such developments work within the marine and national planning policy statements will define how they are undertaken. Anything else is likely to lead to a fractured approach to renewable energy generation offshore, with potential conflicts between elements of the land side of those operations—something that is especially true of the Severn barrage. Therefore, the relevant planning bodies must undertake detailed consideration and analysis to make sure that the policy statements are right.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which is incorporated in the view that in all these matters, bodies charged with a substantial role in the stewardship of the natural environment onshore and offshore should have a central role to play in the overall planning of both those environments. The question of how that is to be secured does not necessarily relate to the narrow issue of what considerations relate to planning permission and what follows it, but relates to the wider issue of how those bodies play a central role in the planning and stewardship of the natural environment, particularly as defined by the policy statements that will be issued, and under which those bodies will work—in conjunction, as it happens, with the IPC—on major strategic projects.
	In a sense, the policy statements trump the activities of the IPC because they are concerned with wider issues than is the IPC, and the IPC must have regard to those statements in its own considerations, as will Natural England and the MMOs.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed. My hon. Friend underlines the enormous changes that are taking place in offshore energy production, with the installation of devices out at sea. As she knows, licensing in the English channel brings enormous opportunities for the landward side in servicing, fabrication, transport, installation and landing. I am particularly concerned about the integration of those two things. If we have a point at which that development and those opportunities stop because of an artificial divide between what happens in one place and what happens in another, we risk holding back some of the additional opportunities available—so the point that my hon. Friend makes is important.
	I believe that one way or another, when the Bill is law it will be necessary to consider carefully how those various elements of the planning regime articulate together. It may well be that amendments 25 and 26 do not pass into law—that is just possible—and I must take account of that in what I say. Assuming that that is the case, I hope the Minister will tell us how we can best integrate the offshore and onshore planning arrangements so that the development of offshore wind and other forms of marine energy is enhanced rather than impeded—but enhanced with a proper regard for its place in the marine environment. How can that best be done under the arrangements in the Bill, and how can we best ensure the delivery of the opportunities for UK renewable energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) and other hon. Members have talked about this afternoon?

John McDonnell: I wish to speak to amendments 45 and 46, which are in my name.
	On Government amendment 4, I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) regarding the performance of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I have had limited dealings with him on the Bill, and I rarely compliment Ministers in this place, but may I place on record that in his dealings with the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group and me, he has shown utter courtesy and creative engagement? On that basis, may I also say, on Government amendment 4, that it may well be that the making of a Minister is ensuring that the clammy hands of the lawyers are removed from his throat? This may well be the opportunity for him to demonstrate similar creativity as he showed in his munificence to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West.
	As has been mentioned, the Bill subsumes the Marine and Fisheries Agency into a new non-departmental public body, the MMO—the MFA becomes an NDPB called MMO, if people can bear with me. I am equally interested in the application of the Cabinet Office statement of practice and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 with regard to the staff involved in the transfer.
	Obviously, all hon. Members across the House, have welcomed the legislation and to implement any form of legislation, we need good civil servants who are committed to their jobs, expert in their field and properly supported, and who have high morale and the confidence of the Ministers involved. MFA workers who are now being transferred to the MMO have expressed concerns about their future status, pay, pensions, job opportunities and career paths. As a result of those, on behalf of the PCS parliamentary group, which I chair—it is a cross-party group of hon. Members who come together with the PCS to discuss its members' concerns—I tabled amendments 45 and 46.
	The issue was raised by my noble Friend Lord Rosser in the other place, who spoke about the 200 to 250 staff who will be transferring. Many of those people are experts in their different fields. They are committed and proud to be civil servants. They chose to be civil servants not only on the basis rewards of their jobs—their work is rewarding—but on the basis of their conditions, pay and secure pensions. It is important that, whatever we do, we do not destabilise the organisation, reduce morale or demotivate the staff. We must therefore address the issues of concern that members of staff have raised.

Desmond Turner: Other hon. Members have already spelled out what my amendments will do. They are very simple. Their effect is to give the IPC consenting powers over any renewable energy installation with a capacity of more than 1 MW. That might seem like a technical change, but it is much more than that, as I hope to demonstrate.
	I warmly welcome the Bill. It is crucial to the future management of our seas and to the conservation of the ecosystems, but it is equally critical in the mitigation of climate change. Our offshore waters offer one of our best bastions of defence against climate change, so it is crucial that this Bill does not put in place anything that will obstruct that.
	In this country, we are blessed by having in our coastal waters the richest natural energy source from wave and tide that can be found pretty much anywhere in the world. It would be a tragedy if we did not harvest that energy, which is worth many gigawatts. That source could produce just as much energy as the proposed new nuclear power stations and would in the process give us an industry, which exists only at the moment in small and medium-sized enterprises that are deploying the first commercial machines, that could produce thousands of jobs and billions of pounds-worth of turnover and export potential. It could be the UK equivalent of the wind turbine industry in Denmark and Germany. There is a big prize out there and if we fail to grasp it, that will be extremely sad. Let us consider the value of renewable energy projects. This country benefits from only about 10 per cent. of the added value of wind projects. If we develop wave and tidal power properly in this country, we will get virtually all the added value and that value will be enormous.
	So, why am I worried about the distinction between the MMO and the IPC? The MMO will not be dealing with offshore wind applications. Round 3 offshore wind applications will all be for installations that are bigger than 100 MW. The only applications that will come within the remit of the MMO will be the wave and tidal stream applications. For the foreseeable future, there will not be that many of them and they are bound to be for installations with capacities of less than 100 MW, as the industry has to go through its initial growth stages. There is no short-circuiting that process. Moving from 1.2 MW commercial-scale tidal stream power to the tens and twenties and finally up to 100 MW-plus will be tortuous and difficult. That process is not one that we went through with wind in Britain, because it did not happen in Britain—it happened in Denmark, Germany and Spain. It did not happen in Britain for a host of reasons, with which I will not detain the House.
	Tidal stream and wave technologies are at the same crucial stage as wind technology was more than 25 years ago. We could have had the wind industry then, but for a whole host of reasons we lost it and it went abroad. That is the very real risk to wave and tidal stream technologies at the moment.

Desmond Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not entirely agree, because that is a false conflict. I am talking only about the deployment of machinery that has been demonstrated to have little or no environmental impact in its own right. We should not give the MMO the job of consenting to such deployment, because there is a very real fear that it will not have the engineering expertise to deal with it, whereas the IPC will. Is it sensible economically to set up two structures with lots of experts or to have only one? There is no way that the MMO would be excluded, in any event, because it will still be a statutory consultee that looks at environmental impact assessments.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether I think that the MMO might be too green and too weighted against energy installations. He has a point there. The tidal stream turbine had a very rough passage in getting environmental impact consent, and very nearly did not get it. The assessment and monitoring process cost £4 million—25 per cent. of the cost of the whole project. The investment climate in the industry is appalling and the market is very difficult, because there is not enough support for new and inherently somewhat expensive technologies; adding a crippling burden of costs in environmental consenting creates a risk of strangling it.

Desmond Turner: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that we must have coherence. I am not, for one moment, diminishing the role or importance of environmental impact assessments. However, it is unfortunate that some conservationists and animal or marine ecologists are blind to the fact that the most important threat to ecosystems, apart from bad fishing practices, gravel extraction or whatever, is climate change. That is what makes renewable energy installations totally different in kind from any other socio-economic use. Provided that their immediate ecosystem impact is benign, which by definition it should and can be, such installations also bring wider environmental benefits and are a weapon for climate change mitigation. I do not wish that to be undermined.
	I would be perfectly happy with the MMO if I could be certain that it would have the ability to carry out economically and quickly the consenting process on the relatively modest projects in question—£15 million or so at a time. However, history does not give me that confidence.

Desmond Turner: Yes, I am aware of that agreement, and I use it as support for my case, with which it is perfectly consistent.
	I am fairly sure that the Government will resist my amendments stoutly—Governments generally do—as they are attached to structure that they have in the Bill. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister, however, that if he has got that wrong—if arrangements are such that the consenting process is unduly onerous on, and expensive for, the small and medium-sized enterprises that are developing what will become a critical, strategic industry—and helps to strangle that industry at birth, he will have some accounting to do. I expect to hear some fairly secure assurances from him that that will not be the case; otherwise I urge him to accept my amendment.

Ann McKechin: I commend this interesting and well-informed debate, which has been on a number of important clauses that we discussed at length in Committee. We have also had an opportunity to consider further some of the Bill's very important provisions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly brought our attention to the value and experience of the staff who will form the MMO and of the existing staff at the Marine and Fisheries Agency, and to the obligation that we owe to them for their service. I am grateful, therefore, for his comments, despite the slightly disparaging ones that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made about lawyers—I shall try not to take that too personally.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington reflected the concerns raised by the departmental trade unions about the change of status involved for those staff. As he is aware, a constructive discussion on that subject was held last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and I am happy that he read the latter's letter into the record.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised some other points. It is Government policy that non-departmental public bodies, such as the MMO, should be staffed by public servants. That is an important factor in ensuring their independence from central Government, and it is vital that the MMO is seen as an independent marine manager delivering Government policy as a whole. I would like to reassure the House that we have put in place safeguards to ensure that the terms and conditions of pensions will carry over when staff transfer, that the provisions will apply to new staff and that the MMO staff will be able to apply for civil service jobs.
	As my hon. Friend correctly said, the pay will mirror DEFRA pay in 2010, although the MMO board will wish to reflect on future pay arrangements to attract staff of the right quality and experience. However, any changes would require consultation and negotiation with the trade union representatives and approval by the Secretary of State.
	My hon. Friend also raised the issue of access to gateway. The civil service gateway gives access to all civil service jobs, not just to those in DEFRA. The MMO will apply to civil service commissioners, via the Cabinet Office, for accreditation for MMO staff. Providing the MMO continues to meet the criteria for accreditation, there is no reason why MMO staff should lose the benefit of access to civil service jobs via the gateway scheme.

Ann McKechin: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman's points on that subject. As he is aware, no appointment has been made, as yet, for the chief executive. A recruitment exercise took place earlier this summer. It is not that there were no suitable candidates, but that for a number of reasons we were unable to make a formal offer. I can advise him that a further recruitment exercise has just closed. Interviews are scheduled for early November, and the chief executive will be in place ahead of vesting. In the meantime, an interim senior manager has been appointed to work with the chair designate and officials on the work needed for vesting the new organisation.
	Recruitment for the new headquarters and the retention of staff have been prioritised in business areas where the MFA fulfils key statutory or customer delivery functions, including marine licensing, fishing vessel licensing and the management of fish quotas. The recruitment programme was designed to deliver high-calibre staff to the organisation using objective assessment methodology, as well as technical fit, and to be phased in to bring staff into critical teams as early as possible. More than 40 members of staff have been recruited, and we are bringing them into the MFA in teams. Training for the first three teams started on 5 October. The second phase of recruitment is now under way, and we expect to bring in those members of staff from the end of November onwards. An extensive training programme targeted at the needs of individual teams is under way. Following formal training in London, the trainees are now working on a one-to-one basis alongside existing staff, who are also in London.
	Once handover is completed and signed off to the satisfaction of MFA directors, there will be a period of dual running, with staff operating from Newcastle in tandem with staff in London. To ensure business continuity and a smooth transition in that period, we will ensure that there is a clear process of training, knowledge transfer and dual running. The recruitment programme to replace staff is now well under way and largely complete in Newcastle. Twenty-five members of staff have been recruited to date, and training and handover are now under way in London. I hope that those assurances will persuade the House that we have put in place a procedure that will allow us to recruit the necessary staff of appropriate experience and that there will be a smooth transfer from the MFA to the MMO when the power is vested in it.
	On amendments 30 and 31, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) commented about the extensive period of reflection that we have had since our discussions in Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in discussion with a number of different parties. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that our comments are based on that careful reflection and on ensuring that the Bill not only is as strong as possible, but will deliver on the ambitious priorities that we set out as part of our manifesto obligation.
	The MMO's general objective was subject to extensive debate in the other place and in Committee in this House. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath went into great detail in the other place about why we consider amendments requiring the MMO to "further" the achievement of sustainable development, rather than to "make a contribution" to it, to be inappropriate. I do not want to repeat at length what has been said before, but I do want to make a few key points to reinforce the reasons why the Government cannot support the amendments.
	As was said on Second Reading and in Committee, we already have a strong objective for the MMO. That was strengthened by the package of amendments that the Government introduced on Report in the other place, with the support of Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart. That package introduced a new power to enable the MMO, in pursuit of its overall objective to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, to take any action that it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes.
	That package also provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the MMO on its sustainable development objective—guidance that will make clear the Government's view of the MMO's role and the principles that it should follow in fulfilling its overall objective on sustainable development. The guidance, which is in development, makes clear the MMO's strategic direction, based on the high-level marine objectives, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained earlier, and the clear legislative framework set out in the Bill. Those elements will be reflected in the objectives to be set and agreed for the MMO, as set out in its corporate plan and subject to regular performance review by the Secretary of State. Parliament will receive an annual report so that it, too, can judge the performance of the new body.
	It is important to note that the vast majority of interested parties, as well as the industry sectors and other interests involved in lobbying on the Bill during its passage through Parliament, now accept that the balance that we have achieved is about right. We have received letters from a number of groups and organisations supporting the current position in clause 2, including the Renewable Energy Association, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and the UK Major Ports Group. I was pleased to learn that the group of environmental non-governmental organisations known as Wildlife and Countryside Link is no longer pressing for a change to clause 2. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that is a wide spectrum of interests in the marine environment.

Martin Salter: The Minister is certainly making a fair fist of moving towards allaying the concerns that a number of us raised in Committee. She mentioned the coalition of support for the Government's strengthened position—I accept that they have strengthened it and moved towards "furthering"—but will she tell me whether the WWF is part of that coalition, or whether it is still pressing, as I believe it is, for the text of the original amendment to be written into the Bill?

Ann McKechin: I shall explain in detail why I believe that the amendments would not strengthen the Bill. As a former practising solicitor, I have to say that I do not want the Bill to create a lawyers' charter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that either. That is why I want to make it clear that the current wording is important. Other partner organisations, such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, have a duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development under their parent legislation—including the Environment Act 1995, the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, the Energy Act 2004, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Energy Act 2008 and the Planning Act 2008. None of those is an old piece of legislation; they are all relatively current. There are also terrestrial planning bodies and regional development agencies that, in turn, have similar obligations placed on them. It is important, in my view, to the desirability of integrating marine and terrestrial planning that we have a degree of consistency. This is not about a lack of ambition, as some have alleged. Indeed, the work of the Environment Agency demonstrates how much can be done under the existing formulation.
	Introducing a different duty for only one of those bodies would lead, I believe, to a lack of clarity, which could well have unintended consequences and end up being a lawyers' charter, which all of us—including even those involved in the legal profession—want to avoid. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newbury himself pointed out the dangers yesterday when he referred to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and lawyers dancing on the head of a pin in trying to describe where a garden finishes and a park begins.
	That is precisely why we have tabled Government amendment 4, which will undo the change made in Committee to clause 44 and restore the wording that came to this House from the other place. It is my firm belief that the marine policy statement should set out the policy authorities' general policies for "contributing to" the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. I have considered carefully the arguments put in both Houses in support of the current wording, but I am not persuaded. Speakers in both Houses have made much of the need, with which I wholeheartedly agree, to ensure that there is no inconsistency or incompatibility between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements that will guide decision making by the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
	Similarly, my ministerial colleagues in the other place and I agree entirely with those who wish to have effective integration of marine and terrestrial plans, yet the current wording gives the marine policy statement a different goal from that of terrestrial planning documents, which would make that integration even more difficult. It may be that, semantically, there is little practical difference between "furthering" or "contributing to" the achievement of sustainable development, but that itself is part of the problem. If Parliament, after such extensive debate, insists on the use of "furthering", then marine planners and ultimately the courts will have no option but to assume that a difference was intended—yet no one seems sure what that difference should be in real terms. "Contributing to the achievement of sustainable development" is a long-established concept in terrestrial planning and other contexts, yet "furthering" is entirely untested. I do not believe that we should create uncertainties like that.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promised to look into the possibility of inserting a reference to "furthering" into a paragraph in schedule 5 that requires the marine policy statement to undergo an "appraisal of sustainability". I can advise my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that that initially seemed like a good way of emphasising the forward momentum we expect from the policies in the MPS.

Ann McKechin: There is an area of doubt, so that possibility cannot be overruled. My hon. Friend raises a point that is worth considering. That is why I do not believe that such an amendment would be helpful. It would run the risk of confusing the well-understood process of "sustainability appraisal", which has been established in other contexts for some time. I promised to consider this change, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, on the condition that in our common aim of securing a robust statutory commitment to progress in achieving sustainable development, we
	"must not challenge what has been established by some quite significant legal precedents". ——[ Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 19.]
	Unfortunately, amending paragraph 7 of schedule 5 may do just that, and it is for that reason alone that I have not tabled such an amendment.
	Government amendment 4 is simply about restoring consistency with other legislation; it is certainly not about a lack of ambition. Let me be absolutely clear: the goal of the policies set out in the marine policy statement is to make a real, positive and ongoing difference to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. These policies must make long-term environmental, economic and social sense. By ensuring that the MMO and other public bodies make decisions in accordance with the MPS, we aim to establish real progress and improved sustainability. Accordingly, I urge Opposition Members not to press their amendments to a Division, and to support Government amendment 4.
	Amendments 25 and 26 would remove from the MMO two functions that we intend to give it on vesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made a number of interesting comments—backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—about the need for coherence in our planning policies, and I certainly do not disagree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test also made an important point about the need to link offshore development in renewable energy with the infrastructure that is required inshore. As he will know, we expect the Scottish Government to make a decision this month about the Beauly-Denny connection, which is vital to allowing us to connect the considerable renewable energy sources that exist in the north of Scotland and in our seas. That is why it is important for us to have both the planning structure and the political will that are needed to enable us to make tough decisions.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil)—for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the Gaelic, let me add that his constituency is also known as the Western Isles—came in and then blew out. Unfortunately, he remained silent on why he thought that the Scottish Government rejected last year's planning application for a wind farm in the Western Isles, which is truly the windiest part of western Europe and presented significant potential for further growth in renewable energy. It is regrettable that the decision went the wrong way.
	We could talk for ever about planning issues, but I think it right to return to the specific provisions in the Bill. The Bill introduces a number of changes to the way in which we manage and consent to developments in the seas, which will greatly benefit the offshore renewable energy industry. The Government are already working with the sector to develop a marine action plan by next spring, which will deal with the development of both industrial capacity and technological capability, with deployment opportunities in the United Kingdom, and with any barriers to deployment. Members have rightly raised all those issues today.

Ann McKechin: We will— [Interruption.]

Richard Benyon: The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) paid great tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), calling him a superb Minister, but he also gave him a challenge, which was to think hard about the matters we have discussed in this debate. I regret that he and his colleagues have not risen to the challenge. I would, however, like to put on record at this stage my thanks to both Ministers—the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—for their kindness and help in getting this legislation through. We worked very well together. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will survive the plaudits that he received from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I am sure they were none the less welcome.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) urged Ministers to reflect on the very strong feelings about this matter. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made an interesting proposal in Committee which he raised again today. I remember thinking when it was first raised that it was an elegant solution, but I do not want commitment on this matter to be buried in the schedules to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also defined concisely and clearly what he believes sustainable development to mean, and I entirely agree with him—but the Government feel that they have written this in stone, and they will not listen to the reasonable arguments put forward.
	I am sure that a lot of organisations are happy to say that this is a question of semantics, but we think it is much more important than that. It sends a message beyond the confines of the Bill about what we believe sustainable development to mean in this crucial period leading up to the Copenhagen summit. It also matters in terms of the fulfilment of the Bill's objectives. This is the court of Parliament, and we are deciding what matters in this area. This is not a question of bowing to the concerns of lawyers, which seems to have been too prevalent both in this legislation and elsewhere.
	I am sorry that we have had to conclude this business on a negative note, because we have agreed on so much throughout, but I shall insist on pressing the amendment to a Division and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will support me in the Lobby.

Amendments made: 10, in page 238, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
	'(1) The Energy Act 2008 (c. 32) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (exploitation of areas outside the territorial sea for gas importation and storage), for subsection (5) substitute—'.
	11, in page 238, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) In section 35 (interpretation of Chapter 3), in subsection (1), for the definition of "Gas Importation and Storage Zone" substitute—
	""Gas Importation and Storage Zone" is to be read in accordance with section 1(5);".'.— (Ann McKechin.)

Amendment made: 4, in page 27, line 2, leave out 'furthering' and insert 'contributing to'.— (Ann McKechin.)

Amendment made: 9, in page 217, line 41, at end insert—
	'( ) section 141(4A);'.— (Ann McKechin.)

Amendment made: 14, in page 326, line 18, column 2, leave out '21' and insert '22'.— (Ann McKechin.)
	 Third R eading .
	 Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	This Bill has long been campaigned for by many people— [ Interruption. ]

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he has played an important part in the process, not least by leading the delegation that met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I am pleased to be able to say that we are in the process of agreeing with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment a joint statement on marine planning in areas bordering England and Scotland. Once it is agreed, I shall arrange to place a copy in the Library. Further detail will be set out in concordats that we are currently developing between our Administrations, and they too will be publicly available.
	I believe that the Bill leaves the House better and stronger as a result of our deliberations. A number of amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and there was further progress over the summer. In the past two days, we have agreed the most significant of those amendments. All the changes have resulted in a Bill that truly gives us the means to achieve sustainable development in our seas.
	The Bill creates a framework with the new marine planning system that sets out, through the Marine Management Organisation, how we can balance our need for minerals, energy—because our seas are a great source of renewable power—food, trade, and recreation. We also need to protect the wonders that lie beneath our seas, which are among the richest marine environments in the world.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point and his particular constituency concern. As he is aware, there will be regulations. Although there was not time over the past day and a half to debate those matters here, there will be an opportunity to consider them with some care.
	I express the thanks of the whole House to the many organisations outside the Chamber that have worked constructively with all of us on the Bill—bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF and Wildlife and Countryside Link, the heritage organisations, the representatives of ports, marinas, energy organisations and other marine businesses, and organisations representing commercial and recreational fishing, all of which have supported the Bill. That is a remarkable tribute to the legislation and what it contains. At the start of the process, some might have said that it would be difficult to draft a measure in which all those organisations felt that they had a stake and which they therefore felt able to support. But that is the case, because the Bill brings something of benefit to everyone.

Angela Smith: Will my right hon. Friend also pay tribute to the Ramblers Association and the British Mountaineering Council—two other non-governmental organisations that have supported the Bill.

John Gummer: Is it not disappointing that on two occasions, once today and once yesterday, when the Government have done so much on the Bill, they failed to understand that giving a commitment such as protecting an ecosystem is crucial for people outside to believe that we understand how all this works? To deny that is to say something very old-fashioned—that we can pick bits out and defend those, without understanding that the ecosystem as a whole is what we ought to be concerned to preserve.

Nick Herbert: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It was a shame that there were, apparently, reasons, I believe they were largely technical, why the amendment could not be accepted. It created a power for the Secretary of State to have regard to the issues of a whole ecosystem. It is true that rather too much of the work of nature conservation is process-driven, so we have to remember that creating a marine conservation zone is not an end in itself. We should be focused on outcomes and should, therefore, be looking for tangible results from the designation of those protected areas.
	Overall, I believe that we were able to achieve a balance between the competing interests, but the designation of the zones should be a flexible and ongoing process that addresses the wide range of challenges facing the marine environment. The zones should reflect the dynamic nature of our seas rather than existing as token sanctuaries, and they should have the means available to amend their boundaries or designations where needed.
	It was rather disappointing that Ministers just overturned changes that were made to the Bill in Committee in relation to the MMO's role in sustainable development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, the MMO should be a standard bearer for our seas and involved in actively furthering sustainable development, rather than simply contributing to it.
	It is important to acknowledge that for the conservation measures within the Bill to be truly effective, they need to go hand in hand with fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy, which is key to achieving a sustainable future for our seas. Various elements of the Bill are reliant upon a decentralised and environmentally sensitive CFP. In its current form, the CFP has been as much of a disaster for our fishermen as for the environment. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House discussed yesterday, we must see fishermen as part of the solution to sustainable management of marine environment, and as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) stressed, it is important for us to work in close co-operation with fishermen, and at no stage should they be excluded from consultations or decision making.
	The Conservatives are realistic and we understand that some decisions will not please conservationists, fishermen or local communities, but we believe that if they have been engaged in the decision-making process from the start, the measures in the Bill are far more likely to be successful.
	We must not forget that another marine Bill is being developed in Scotland. It may be trite to say that fish do not recognise lines on a map, but we must ensure that we work constructively with the Scottish Government and other devolved powers, so that the management of the whole of the UK's marine environment is joined up and coherent.
	The focus that the Bill has received has shown that concern about our marine environment is not restricted to a few vested interests. Millions of people, including some from inland areas, have shown their concern for the health of the marine environment. Although the measures relating to that are clearly the most significant in the Bill, I do not want to neglect the coastal access element of it. We are generally supportive of the principle of increasing access to our coast and countryside, but we had concerns about the specific provisions for a coastal path. That aspect of the Bill has received a great deal of scrutiny both here and in the other place, and the measures before us today have been greatly improved in terms of safeguards and appeals. Our reservations over coastal margin, mapping, liability and future use of land have all been aired at length during the passage of the Bill, and although assurances have been given by the Minister, we will be keeping an eager eye on the development of the coastal route.
	Much of the work now is in delivery—delivery of the MMO, MCZs and the coastal path. Natural England has been charged with a great deal of the responsibility for the implementation of the coastal route and MCZs. We would like to see much of the responsibility for the route devolved to voluntary access forums and local authorities. We believe that a top-down approach to coastal access is not the answer and that local groups are much better placed to designate and manage the shape of the route.
	There needs to be full consultation at an early stage with all stakeholders to ensure that MCZs are robust and sustainable and that the principles of an ecologically coherent network can be set out quickly.
	This is a long-awaited and important moment. We are very nearly at the end of the long process of ensuring the protection of our marine environment. The Bill is the product of a constructive legislative process that represents the kind of productive debate and discussion of which, too often, there is rather too little in politics today. We have a better Bill as a result, and I look forward, as I am sure many others do, to celebrating its inclusion on the statute book.

Tom Levitt: I may not be the obvious Member of the House to speak about marine environments or coastal access, because we have neither coast nor marine environments in my constituency. However, High Peak is the philosophical home of the right to roam: we had the Kinder trespass in 1932 and the first open-access land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and we have more open-access land than any other constituency in England.
	High Peak is the birthplace of the right to roam, but it is also the birthplace of one Sir Martin Doughty. Martin was my constituent, and he died of cancer earlier this year. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench would acknowledge that without him, there would have been no Marine and Coastal Access Bill. As the chair of Natural England, and of English Nature before that, Martin was largely responsible for working with various environment Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and others, to bring the measure about.
	Before Martin was involved in English Nature and Natural England, he was the chair of the Peak District national park and the leader of Derbyshire county council. He was born and bred in High Peak and lived there his whole life. He lived and breathed the countryside and the natural world and explored it as often as he could with a passion and humour that was truly infectious. In the 20 years that I knew him, he was one of the kindest, most gentle and most principled people that I ever met. Everyone who came across him respected him and very soon loved him.
	Martin was also a great socialist, who put principles into practice in a pragmatic, thoughtful and just way. A couple of weeks ago, 200 of us gathered on Kinder Scout on what would have been his 60th birthday. There were friends, neighbours, political allies and even some rivals, people from interest groups, Government agencies, local authority leaders and two of my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), who are sitting either side of me tonight. We went not only to remember Martin, but to dedicate Kinder Scout in his memory—it was created the 223rd national nature reserve on that very day.
	The ambition to create a national coastal path that is accessible to walkers, climbers and others where appropriate is sound and it is right, and it is Martin's achievement as much as that of any other individual, although he was never one to claim the limelight. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider calling all or part of it either the Doughty way or Martin's way or something in his memory.
	On Kinder Scout a couple of weeks ago, we sang to Martin's memory. It will be of little surprise on the Government Benches that we sang "The Manchester Rambler". I had the great privilege of meeting the author of that song, Ewan McColl, once, many years ago, and my constituency is mentioned several times in it. Ewan McColl was the press officer for the mass trespass in 1932 and Martin Doughty's father was one of the trespassers.
	Given that we are talking about the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, one verse stands out from the song—there is a prescient mention of the legislation that we are talking about. It goes:
	"He"—
	the gamekeeper—
	"called me a louse and said 'Think of the grouse'.
	Well I thought, but I still couldn't see
	Why old Kinder Scout and the moors round about
	Couldn't take both the poor grouse and me.
	He said 'All this land is my master's'
	At that I stood shaking my head,
	No man has the right to own mountains
	Any more than the deep ocean bed."
	With that, and in the memory of Sir Martin Doughty, the founding chairman of Natural England and the moving force behind the coastal path, I congratulate Ministers on this highly significant and important piece of legislation and look forward to its enactment.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and I am certain that his tributes to Sir Martin Doughty were well deserved.
	This is a phenomenally important piece of legislation. In this brief contribution, I simply wish to convey this: I hope, after all the work in both Houses, that the Bill will prove in years to come to be fit for purpose, particularly regarding its original, central purpose, the future of the marine environment. It is a rich resource that deserves the protection that it will be given as a result of the legislation.
	I am also grateful to the Secretary of State, and I concur with him and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). As a sponsor of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in 2001, I have likewise been following this debate for many years.
	I pay tribute to the Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—for the manner in which they have managed and conducted the Bill through its various stages in the House. The Bill has a wet side and a dry side—port and starboard—meaning a part that deals with marine conservation and a part that deals with coastal access. Piloting such a large ship has been a very challenging task for both Ministers. It is also an issue that provokes enormous interest on both sides of the House, not only in those hon. Members with coastal constituencies, but in many who, while they have no doubt been lobbied, also have a deep interest because we are a maritime nation. It is not possible to talk about the sea and the coast without everyone in this country taking an interest.
	This is a monumental and important Bill. It is not precisely as I would have designed it—I hope that that will not be a severe handicap to it—but I think that it will prove to be fit for purpose. I hope that two watchwords will be applied to the Bill. The first is balance, which runs like a common—or even a golden—thread through it. I proposed amendments to achieve balance in the designation of the marine conservation zones and in the operation of the conservation policies and byelaws, and I hope that in the implementation of the Bill and the operation of the MMO we will achieve the balance that we all wish to achieve.
	The second watchword is consensus. Throughout the debate, there has been an assumption that conflict in the marine zone is inevitable—that fishermen are always in conflict with marine conservationists. Over the last decade, the fishing sector has increasingly worked with marine conservationists and other scientists and found common ground—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Linda Gilroy: The Bill has been one of the most satisfying measures that I have been associated with in 12 and a half years as an MP. I am fortunate to have been involved since the early stages, including the private Member's Bill that many hon. Members have mentioned. With 450 marine scientists and 1,500 environmental students in my constituency, a large cluster of marine science and technology organisations and now the first low-carbon economic zone designation in the country, which will put us at the forefront of renewable energy technology—especially wave energy—and climate change and marine technologies, it is no wonder that I have taken such an interest, and I will continue to do so.
	The Bill has been amended and had clauses added, including those we have just debated, dealing with how to achieve the important balance that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned between social, economic and environmental tensions, which is of course the very reason for the framework that the Bill sets up. It will achieve that balance, and the assurances that the Minister has given that the five shared principles adopted by the UK Administrations are embedded in the high-level objectives will be an important aspect of that as the policy statements are developed. As the Minister acknowledged, it is likely that a range of Select Committees, including the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Energy and Climate Change Committee and the Transport Committee—perhaps even the regional Select Committees—and all the industry and professional associations and the academics who have lobbied long and hard for the Bill, will keep it under the microscope.
	I drew some reassurance from the assertion made in Committee—and repeated yesterday—that not to create a coherent ecosystem would open up the Government to judicial review if they do not follow the science. However, I have to confess to a slight disappointment at one response to an intervention earlier. I will continue to look with great interest at the suggestion by the Renewable Energy Association that a chief engineering adviser is necessary. The association thinks that the appointment of a chief scientific adviser to the MMO is helpful in respect of marine conservation, but will not address the needs of an engineering discipline such as marine and renewable energy, and that is why the MMO should also be required to appoint a chief engineering adviser. Time will tell on that point, as on others.
	Everybody will want to help make this globally ground-breaking framework work. The Minister and the civil servants have received many plaudits, which they richly deserve. The challenge will now be for the MMO to draw on the rich expertise that has been displayed throughout the formulation of the draft Bill and its various stages in both Houses. Whether as a legislator, a scrutineer, a constituency MP or someone who has walked 200 miles of the 600 miles of the south-west coast, I intend to try to play a small part in taking the framework forward.

John Randall: I thank the Front Benchers and other hon. Members for their kind words. When my private Member's Bill failed in the other place, I was in fact mightily relieved. It seemed like a simple idea at the time, but I realised that I had unearthed an issue that no private Member would ever be able to get on the statute book. I am pleased that all parties made a commitment to the issue, and it fell to this particular team to take it on. We have had a variety of sympathetic Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers. I pay particular tribute to the current incumbents on the Treasury Bench, who have worked hard, as have my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
	I also wish to thank the organisations involved, although it was their members—our constituents—who pushed this issue. I can remember many colleagues telling me about the masses of letters and e-mails that they had received on this subject. They were delighted to find out that we were supporting this Bill, and everybody has played a part in its progress. All those interested in the marine environment have worked hard to get to this point, and that should be recognised outside this House. I still have a couple of questions that time does not allow me to ask, so I shall write to the Minister and I hope that in his usual manner he will answer them.
	We should feel proud. This Parliament, from 2005 to 2010—if that is when it will be—will be remembered for many things, and probably not all very kind things to those of us who have been here. But there is one thing of which we should all be very proud: this Bill. Every time that we look across the sea, or we are on the sea, we can feel that we have done our bit to protect it. I would sound only one cautionary note: it has been difficult enough to get this legislation, but the real, tough proof will be in making it work.

Alun Michael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and to agree with his last point. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Ministers on the Bill. I want to concentrate on the issue of coastal access. I cannot think of a better way of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the national parks than the designation of the south downs, which is now combined with the opening up of coastal access by the Bill.
	I was Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality when we implemented the right to roam, and I experienced the enormous complexity of going beyond the legislation to do the work of opening up that access. It was not just the commitment of Ministers but the excellent work and commitment of officials at DEFRA who carried that through that allowed us to go so far so fast. That is no mean achievement, and the right to roam is now not as controversial as it sometimes was in advance of that legislation.
	There will be similar challenges in implementing the coastal access requirement. I know what that entails and just how complex that can be, because for 10 years I took youngsters to work on the South Glamorgan heritage coast to open up access. The commitment to opening up coastal access is enormously beneficial, and that experience taught me how much the social benefits of such access mean to young people. When I see those youngsters now, as quite middle-aged adults, they always refer to that experience. There is something very important about the link to the special parts of our natural environment. The most single significant fact about coastal access was borne in on me when I opened both ends of the south-west way, with its value of £300 million a year to the local economy. It is about our natural environment, the benefit to society and the economy.
	I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) about Sir Martin Doughty. He was a great friend and a wonderful human being, and I cannot think of a better way of making the link between people and the environment than a title such as Martin's way for the coastal footpath. He is not just a local hero; for many of us throughout the United Kingdom he was one of those individuals whom we value because he made such a contribution to society. It is significant that, with my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and for High Peak, we commemorated him on Kinder, where it was not just controversial but against the law to walk on the hills. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made the link between the high hills of the country and the coast.
	This is a significant piece of legislation, which I am sure we will value for many years to come.

John Gummer: I represent 74 miles of coastline, so for me this is an important Bill. I want to put it on record that I have a fundamental objection to the basis on which the coastal path is placed. It is entirely wrong and it will be very damaging in the future, but I recognise how we have reached this situation.
	However, that is my only disagreement, because the main part of the Bill on marine protection makes a very important contribution. I pay tribute to a person who is no longer a Member of the House, Tam Dalyell, who represented West Lothian and who played an important part in supporting the original Bill—the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).
	I supported two amendments, and it is in no spirit of party politics or indeed irritation that I come back to those in these last words. The promotion of sustainability must be at the centre of everything that we do, and the Government, in objecting to that, and indeed reversing the Committee's decision, have done something very serious. By that very reversal they have suggested something that I do not think they mean but which could easily be used afterwards to stop actions being taken that should be taken. Sustainability should be our watchword. I remind the Secretary of State that his former leader, on becoming Prime Minister in 1997, said that he would put sustainability at the heart of all his policies. To have voted that down tonight was a mistake. It was also a mistake not to put on the face of the Bill the words about ecosystems, and that will prove to be so.
	There is one other matter that I am sorry that we have missed. District councils feel that they have a particular role that was less than adequately recognised in our discussions, as they are very often the maritime authorities.
	Altogether those are small things once one recognises this important Bill. It is important in recognising what has obviously been the input of civil servants to remind the Minister in future to avoid the temptation of "better not". I suspect that some of the matters that we have pressed were not taken on board because somebody said, "Better not." We need to be adventurous, and I hope that the new management arrangements will enable, at least in prosecution of the Bill, the adventure that is so important. It is the beginning of a new part of our history: the proper protection of the seas. I wish it well. This has been an exemplary procedure. I only hope that those who carry it through—that is where the proof, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, will be—will push the boundaries further with a spirit of determination in a way that most of us, on both sides of the House, would like them to do.

Nick Ainger: As the coastal path goes through the constituency of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) he will learn the huge benefits that will flow from it, as I have in my constituency where the 187 miles of the Pembrokeshire coastal path is seen as a huge economic benefit to the area as well as an opportunity for people to see some of the best maritime scenery not only in this country but in the world.
	I congratulate not just the present team but the teams which, over the years, have worked on the Bill. I know, as a former Minister, that discussions took place with the devolved Governments on its detail, and it took a long time. Remarkably—it is remarkable—the industry and all the pressure groups have come together to achieve consensus and balance, and it took a lot of work to achieve that.
	As well as the important features, such as the designation of marine conservation zones—which are vital and in the long term will have a huge impact on our ecosystems and sustainability, not just of those habitats but of the fishing industry, which will benefit hugely in the long term—the fact that we are now seeing our marine areas as an important source of energy in the future meant that it was vital to get the planning systems right for our offshore areas. It would have been catastrophic to meeting our climate change obligations if we could not develop renewable energy from our marine areas.
	So, congratulations are genuinely deserved in this case. The Bill is a good example of cross-party and cross-interest working, admittedly over a long time. The gestation period has been long, but the birth that we hope to see shortly is well-deserved and its results will be incredibly effective, too.
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 26 October).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that the right of free assembly and peaceful procession is an intrinsic human right and an important part of the British heritage; acknowledges the cultural significance of parading in Northern Ireland and its tourist potential; regrets the attempts by a minority to interfere with the right to parade peacefully; and accepts that it is a political imperative to resolve such matters, especially in a context where it is proposed to devolve policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland.
	I should perhaps begin by providing some explanation for the choice of this subject matter and by outlining something of our purpose and intention. Members who study these things will be aware that our last Opposition day debate was on the economy. We are currently considering the issue of policing and justice, which is a major subject in Northern Ireland, and parading is closely aligned with that subject and therefore has a critical common theme, which I shall come to in the course of my remarks.
	The wording of the motion was considered in the context of ensuring that this would not become a debate of contention. I and my colleagues desire that the matters relating to parades in Northern Ireland should be resolved. That is particularly important in the context of the devolution of policing and justice. I strongly contend that although they have been divisive issues in the past, they should not be treated in a manner whereby it is a victory for one side or another to seek and gain a resolution. A resolution should be considered to be a success for all.
	I said that I believed it to be imperative that we resolve these issues in the context of the potential devolution of policing and justice. To leave them unresolved and to devolve powers in policing and justice would plant a seed at the heart of government in Northern Ireland that would, I believe, be corrosive and derisive and could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I urge people seriously to consider these matters and to put them at the centre of debate, particularly in Northern Ireland, and I urge politicians to seek a resolution to the problems.
	All too often, we get around to June or July and politicians and other well-meaning people decide that that is a good time for us to start to consider how we can resolve the issue of contentious parades. It is already too late by then—the parades start moving forward, it becomes more difficult to get a resolution and we all wait to the following year before we suddenly wake up to the issue again in June or July.
	For that reason, as First Minister I invited the Orange Order in Portadown and the Garvaghy road residents to come to see me so that we would have a full year to start working through how we might resolve the issue. I believe that we made some progress. I found that both parties were willing to sit down and to talk about how they might resolve the issues, and both were looking towards the Parades Commission or some other independent arbitrator to bring together the parties and to consider a resolution on that parade, which is one of the longest running disputed parades with which we have to deal. Now is the time to do this—we should not wait until we are into the marching system, as it is called in Northern Ireland, before we start struggling with these matters.
	It is my goal and that of my colleagues, I hope, that over time parades in Northern Ireland will be dealt with as they would be in any other part of the United Kingdom—indeed, as they would be in any other European democracy. As a Unionist I have no difficulty in stating categorically that a human rights framework is crucial to get us to that point in Northern Ireland. I recognise that that framework will be defined principally by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, although there will be some who will not be happy about that. I also recognise that in certain situations there might be a number of competing rights. In any lawful society the balance between such competing rights will ultimately be determined by the courts, not by the group that has the ability to cause the maximum disruption around contentious parades.
	Those who are concerned that the legal framework in Northern Ireland surrounding behaviour at parades might not be sufficiently adequate to deal with these circumstances should not lose any sleep worrying that additional legislation is required. The contents of the statute book are more than sufficient. A cursory glance through the relevant criminal legislation reveals no fewer than seven pieces of legislation that could be applied to anyone misbehaving at parades—either those participating or those protesting. They are: the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; the Terrorism Act 2000; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Criminal Justice (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004; and, of course, the Human Rights Act 1998, which places all public authorities under an obligation to act in a manner compatible with the European convention on human rights and to take into account decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
	Freedom of expression as guaranteed by article 10 of the convention has been described by the Court as
	"one of the essential foundations of a democratic society".
	Who am I to disagree with that assessment? That right, of course, is not absolute, but again the Court provides assistance when restrictions on freedom of expression are mooted. Any restriction "must be convincingly established" and subject to very close scrutiny, given the recognition that freedom of expression is often a pre-requisite for the enjoyment of many other rights, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as articulated in article 11. That right is one that
	"should not be interpreted restrictively".
	Again, the Court is of assistance.
	Let me say to Unionists, who have for far too long been reluctant to embrace the protections that human rights legislation provides, that there should be no hesitation in praying the convention in aid on parading matters. Two cases stand out in that regard. In 1980, the European Commission of Human Rights held in Christians Against Racism and Fascism  v. UK that
	"the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is secured to everyone who has the intention of organising a peaceful demonstration".
	It went on to state that
	"the possibility of violent counter demonstrations, or the possibility of extremists with violent intentions, not members of the organising association, joining the demonstration cannot as such take away that right. Even if there is a real risk of a public procession resulting in disorder by developments outside the control of those organising it, such a procession does not for this reason alone fall outside the scope of Article 11".
	Eight years later, the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in Plattform "Arzte für das Leben"  v. Austria. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for quoting from that judgment, but given the history of intolerance shown towards loyal order demonstrations, it is perhaps helpful to show where the balance of rights lie in a lawful society. It stated:
	"A demonstration may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. The participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents; such a fear would be liable to deter associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial issues affecting the community. In a democracy the right to counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate."
	It goes on:
	"Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot, therefore, be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere: a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the object and purpose of Article 11."
	Let us compare the rights that the Court articulated with the strategy that republicans organised and orchestrated in opposing lawful parades. Gerry Adams's now infamous briefing, fortuitously caught on tape by RT�, is chillingly cynical. Let me remind hon. Members of the unguarded but authentic words of Mr. Adams. He said:
	Ask any activist in the north, 'did Drumcree happen by accident?', and they will tell you, 'no'. Three years of work on the Lower Ormeau Road, Portadown, and parts of Fermanagh and Newry, Armagh and in Bellaghy and up in Derry. Three years of work went into creating that situation and fair play to those people who put the work in. They are the type of scene changes that we have to focus on and develop and exploit.
	The situation to which Mr. Adams refers was one in which those seeking to exercise their convention rights were prevented from doing so by violence and by the threat of violence. As I said, the demand for parading to be seen in a rights-based framework is one that every citizen of the United Kingdomindeed, of any democracy worth the namecan comfortably support.
	Let me dare to make the point that no matter what role Sinn Fein had in the creation of parading disputes, it is now in the interests as much of Sinn Fein as of Unionists to find a resolution. A way forward can gain the support of both sections of our community, and it is both achievable and desirable.
	My colleagues and I strongly support the work of Lord Ashdown, who has been working on the strategic review of parading in Northern Ireland. My party welcomed the initiation of the review, because it provided an opportunity to take a fresh look at the issue and to put right the failures of the past. The review body published an interim consultative report in April 2008, and the foreword to that report was signed by all the members of the review groupall the members, including the well-known Belfast republican Sean Spike Murray. Given the consensus reached in April 2008 by the group, which also had a leading member of the Orange Order on it, one has to ask why the final report has not reached the Secretary of State. I make it very clear that it is no fault of Lord Ashdown that it has not done so; after all, the timeline envisaged in the foreword was,
	to deliver the final report to the Secretary of State in the autumn of 2008;
	and the group believed that its proposals
	could and should be brought into effect early in 2009.
	I suggest that the reason for the delay is that Sinn Fein is seeking once again to use parading as a means to create what Mr. Adams might call a situationthis time not around anything so crude as threatening any expression of Britishness, but around an attempt to extract a political price to deliver what has already been agreed. Mr. Adams and his proxy may rue the day that they linked the future of the Ashdown review to the devolution of policing and justice powers, but, in that interim report, that is precisely what they did; and, just as Sinn Fein insisted that changes in parading arrangements could not move forward until policing and justice functions were devolved, I, too, indicate that those functions cannot be devolved until we have moved forward with the necessary changes in parading.
	In the Unionist community's experience, the Parades Commission has continued to issue determinations either restricting loyal order parades or preventing them from taking place because of threats of disruption and, in cases, violence itself. However, the Commission does not receive too many Christmas cards from republicans, either. Instead of being part of the solution to the problems that are associated with parades in Northern Ireland, the Parades Commission has become part of the problem. For that reason, my party has been clear that we want to see the Parades Commission abolished and a new system instituted to deal with parades in the Province. I believe that there is widespread support for that position. Indeed, it is also the context in which the Ashdown review has been written.
	In recent days, much has been made about the financial package that the Prime Minister has offered in respect of the devolution of policing and justice responsibilities to Northern Ireland. I welcomed his publication of those proposals, and I believe that the Assembly should seriously consider them in its Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Throughout those discussions, however, my colleagues and I have consistently argued that community confidence is a necessary pre-requisite for any such transfer of powers. Indeed, in November 2008, in a published process paper that was agreed by the Deputy First Minister, an entire sectionthe so-called group 5 issueswas based on the principle that community confidence would be required.
	That group of issues identified four steps, concluding with the requirement:
	Secure necessary community confidence for the transfer of policing and justice.
	I have a responsibility to gauge when such confidence exists, and my best advice to the House is that, in order to increase public confidence sufficiently to create confidence in the devolution of policing and justice powers, a resolution of the parading issue will be indispensable. In particular, such an outcome will not include the Parades Commission.
	Resolution is possible by the establishment of an acceptable rights-based framework. It also means tackling the small number of contested parades that grab the headlines when protest descends into violence. The last published statisticsfor the year to the end of March 2008show that in Northern Ireland there were 3,849 parades. The Parades Commission labelled 250, or 6.5 per cent., of them as contentious, which actually means that the application required detailed consideration. Only 147 of the total, or 3.8 per cent., required the imposition of conditions. One fifth of those contentious parades related to the Drumcree stand-off alone. The resolution of parading issues in five areasjust five areaswould at a stroke transform the atmosphere in Northern Ireland and increase community confidence, with all the attendant benefits that that would bring.
	The motion before the House recognises the tourist potential of parades in Northern Ireland. This year it was my pleasure to attend and speak at the Orangefest launch event in Belfast's Parliament Buildings. Indeed, it was the second time that I have been invited to speak at the event, and I am not a member of the Orange Order, so that says something about the inclusive nature of the order and its attempt to reach out beyond its own ranks. This year the celebrations, known as the Twelfth, took place on 13 July, so the Twelfth was on the 13th this year in Belfast. But that was not the only break from the norm. On the four-mile march to The Field in south Belfast, 10,000 Orangemen, from as far afield as Ghana, Togo and Canada, were joined by colourful street entertainment. In total, 100,000 people were in downtown Belfast. Happily, for the first time in recent memory, city centre traders opened for business during the celebrations. The BBC coverage carried a series of interviews with tourists from across the globe.

Peter Robinson: The initiative of Orangefest was not that of the Parades Commission but of the Orange institutions themselves. Indeed, the same has happened with the Apprentice Boys, who have made a festival out of their event, encouraging tourists to come to the city of Londonderry just as the Orangemen, through Orangefest, have encouraged large numbers to come to the city of Belfast.
	Where the shopkeepers have gone, in opening their premises during the marching period, it is my earnest hope that the hoteliers and the general tourist industry will follow. This year the Northern Ireland tourist board reported that the Twelfth was a great success. Festivities in Belfast to mark Orangefest on 12 and 13 July went without a hitch and are likely to be repeated. According to city centre management, the feedback from attendees suggests that those will become regular activities. An initial small survey of members of the public attending the street entertainment reported very high satisfaction levels, with 98 per cent. intending to return next year. According to the Belfast visitor and convention bureauone of the Orangefest partnersthe traditional dip in visitor numbers experienced in July, largely due to fears about personal safety during the marching season, has been reversed in the past five years. In fact, Belfast's hotel market records bed-night occupancies in excess of 80 per cent. in the middle of Julysomething that one would not have seen anything remotely close to in the decade before.
	This motion is not being brought before the House in a contentious manner; I believe that its wording avoids contention. I hope that it will bring centre stage a debate on parading that requires a solution. That solution must involve those who parade and those who protest. It should lead to ensuring that those who wish to march do so in a dignified and peaceful manner, and that those who wish to protest do so in similar fashion. Respect for cultural diversity must be the objective. I look to the day when historical and cultural expression, from wherever it may come in our society, is seen to enrich and colour our lives rather than being a cause of division and contention. I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Goggins: Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on his opening speech. It was a very thoughtful and considered contribution, and a good start to this evening's debate. He promised at the outset that he would not be contentious, and would instead explore the issues around parading. He was as good as his word, and I think that that will help to stimulate a very constructive debate. He raised a number of interesting and important points. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss those issues with him and his colleagues, and indeed with Members in all parts of the House. The debate has already illustrated, even from its opening speech, the continuing importance of this issue to the people of Northern Ireland.
	Our discussion comes at a time when considerable political progress has been made in Northern Ireland. The advances of recent years should not be underestimated, as time and again political leaders have demonstrated that where a problem exists, so too does a solution. Dialogue and political engagement have brought great rewards for Northern Ireland. As many people from all over the world comment, including Secretary of State Clinton on her recent visit, the way in which seemingly intractable problems have been overcome stands as an example to many other areas that are beset with violent conflict.
	Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, however, this debate clearly demonstrates that there are still issues to be resolved. In the time that I have held my current responsibilities in Northern Ireland, it has always been clear to me that there are no easy answers to the complex and sensitive issue of parading. Certainly I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that coming to address the issue each year in June or July is far too late: discussion and dialogue has to begin much sooner that that. It is also clear to me that it is in local dialogue, in trying to resolve disputes, and in working tirelessly together across communities, that solutions can be found and a way forward can be identified.
	Difficulties associated with parading can only, and will only, be resolved when there is engagement at political and local level, when there is understanding of and respect for different opinions, and when we move away from thinking in terms of winners and losersas the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested. There has to be an atmosphere of tolerance whereby everyone accepts the right to parade as well as the right to peaceful and lawful protest. Again I pay tribute to thoseincluding many of those in this House todaywho give unstintingly of their time and energy to ensure that the majority of parades and protests pass without incident. In particular, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his effortshe described them in his speechin seeking to begin a process aimed at finding a resolution to the issue of Drumcree. As I know from our many meetings and discussions, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), too, has over many years sought to resolve this issue.
	In any discussion on parading, it is important to keep the issue in perspective. The vast majority of parades in Northern Ireland pass without incident; only a small fraction of the 3,000 parades each year are considered to be controversial. But I recognise, too, that parading has the capacity to cause division. I also acknowledge that there are those who would, for their own cynical purposes, seek to exploit difficult situations in an effort to drag people back to the past.
	Problems of public order can quickly escalate. Notwithstanding the signs of progress in Belfast this yearon 13 July, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rather than 12 Julywith further signs of progress in the economy and in tourism, the situation faced at Ardoyne on 13 July, when dissident republicans, against the wishes of local people, attacked the police and sought to disrupt the parade, provides a very recent example of how things can go wrong and serves as a reminder that not everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see the parading issue resolved. Those who would bring firearms into an area, and leave them where children can find them, as they did at Ardoyne that evening, treat such communities with total disdain.
	More generally, those who deliberately stir up public order tensions have as their objective the destruction of community relations and the creation of division, apprehension and insecurity. They want to damage Northern Ireland's reputation, to drive away potential investment, and to undermine the efforts of those seeking to encourage others to come to Northern Ireland as a tourist destination.
	It is vital, therefore, that we all work together to ensure that the dissidents are unsuccessful in what they seek to do. That means providing leadership at the political level and fostering an environment of understanding, co-operation, tolerance and mutual respect at the community level. It is not, as such people would have us believe, a case of you win and I lose. If the dissidents have their way and instil their sense of bitterness and hatred across the community, then, of course, everyone is a loser. That is why it is vital that politics is seen to work and that communities recognise the need to find a way of respecting the traditions of those who wish to parade, while acknowledging the rights of those who wish to protest.
	In acknowledging that 2009 has in some areas been a difficult parading season, I want to recognise the work of the Parades Commission. It has made a major contribution to the delivery of successful and peaceful parading in Northern Ireland in recent years, and I pay tribute to it for all that it has done. Its job is extremely challenging and sometimes makes it unpopular; it takes courage to take difficult decisions. It is worth remembering that in recent months, threats have been issued against the members of the commission by dissident republicans opposed to the decisions that they have taken. The House will want to join me in condemning those who seek to threaten and intimidate in such a way. They have nothing to offer, and will not be allowed to succeed.
	In paying tribute to the commission for its work, I also acknowledge that we recognised at St. Andrews that a new approach was required to deal with parading. The Government therefore established the strategic review of parading under the chairmanship of Lord Ashdown to see whether a sustainable solution could be found. I said when I announced the review that it was not going to be a quick fix, and I wanted the review group to have the time to consider the matter carefully and hear and reflect on all shades of opinion. The Government welcomed the publication of the interim report, which, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, was supported by all members of the review group and presented detailed and carefully considered proposals. It was clear from the document that the group had listened carefully to the representations received.
	I pay tribute to the review group for its work. It comprises representatives from different traditionsthose who wish to parade and those representing communities with concerns about parading. They have sat down together, used their experience, discussed their differences and mapped out a process based on dialogue and the development of a shared understanding of their different views and positions. That is the required approach if a long-term resolution to the parading issue is to be found. Lord Ashdown has indicated that the group is finalising its work, and the Government look forward to receiving its report.
	The Secretary of State and I have always made it clear that the Government stand ready to introduce changes to how parades in Northern Ireland are managed when there is community agreement so to do. That is intended not to take away from the work of the Parades Commission, but rather to recognise that there are other mechanisms by which a resolution to this long-standing problem may be found.
	The solution brought forward 11 years ago is not necessarily the one for today, or indeed for the future. Politically, we are in a different place now from where we were when the commission was established. It is not surprising, therefore, that the review group will want to consider whether a different process is required and where responsibility for that process should be located. However, it is important to recognise, as the strategic review interim report does, that until changes are implemented and ready to operate, the Parades Commission will remain the final arbiter in parading matters.
	The abiding and consistent lesson from the Northern Ireland peace and political processes is that where there is a problem, the political parties and the different communities can work together productively to secure a solution. The solution to the parades that are the source of community dissension and division, as Lord Ashdown has indicated, and the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly stated, will come through local dialogue and the development of tolerance, understanding and mutual respect.
	I recognise that concerns are deep-rooted and will not be resolved overnight, but if we do not find a solution, the potential for wider political, economic and social damage should not be underestimated. All of us must collectively continue to work towards a solution, and I encourage all the parties in Northern Ireland to focus on the contentious parades that, as we have seen again in 2009, have the potential to undermine the achievements of recent years. Together we must put in place a process that will ensure that divisions are healed and respect for different traditions is encouraged.
	We need to ensure that parading is about not winning and losing, but creating the space for communities to come together, work together in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and find a way forward that will acknowledge the rights of all sides. I encourage all those engaged in this matter not to close their minds but to continue to see the opportunities. The Government remain committed to working with the parties to secure the necessary agreement, and to doing whatever we can to move this issue forward.

Laurence Robertson: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on introducing the debate. I agree with the Minister that he spoke in a reasonable and measured way, which is appropriate given the sensitivities in Northern Ireland in general, and particularly on this subject.
	I agreed with much of what the Minister said, and I thank him for being available to discuss these issues and for having an open-door policy when it comes to matters involving Northern Ireland, whether it be in the Chamber or when we discuss statutory instruments, as we often do. I believe that we will be back together next week to discuss one or two more, and I look forward to that.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast, East, was absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that everyone has the right to assemble, to march and to protest peacefully. The Minister reinforced that point. Freedom of speech and expression is a time-honoured tradition, and we should never dispense with it or endanger it. Additionally, we have to understand that in Northern Ireland, expression through marches has cultural and historic importancean important matter, to which the motion draws attention.
	As the right hon. Gentleman saidthe figures are worth repeatingin 2007-08 the Parades Commission received notification of 3,849 parades, of which only 250 were contentious. Of those, only 147 had conditions applied to them. As he said, less than 4 per cent. of the parades were of real concern. That said, 147 parades being seen as contentious or difficult and having to have conditions attached to them is a large number, even if a small percentage.
	It is important for sensitivity to accompany both the debate and any march or protest, and to be demonstrated on both sides. As everybody knows, Northern Ireland has two very different cultures with different views, but we have to move forward together and recognise that we are trying to build a shared future. Sensitivity and respect on both sides is therefore important. We have made the most enormous progress in Northern Ireland, and we should pay tribute to all the political parties that have taken part in the democratic debates, and to the people of Northern Ireland. The fact that the people had had enough of the troubles was one of the most telling factors that enabled the Province to move forward.
	We still feel, however, that there is a need for a body to take decisions on parades, even if that body is not the Parades Commission as such. We are aware that the commission may not command respect throughout Northern Ireland, but the Minister was right to draw attention to the fact that it has done a great deal of good work. Importantly, it took the responsibility for deciding on parades away from the police, leaving them to look after the parades without having to make the rules about them. However, it does not enjoy complete support. It has some, but we want to engage with the people of Northern Ireland in deciding what should replace it and how we should move on.
	I spoke to the Minister earlier, and as I understand ithe may wish to confirm thisit is for this House in Westminster to decide what will replace the Parades Commission. If we are so minded, it is also for this House to devolve decision making on parades to Northern Ireland. As I understand it, that does not happen automatically with the devolution of policing and justice. I would be grateful if at some point in the debate the Minister could confirm that I am right.

Eddie McGrady: All of us in Northern Ireland with responsibilities as politicians have always had firmly before us the need to harmonise our communities and the diversity of opinions, politically and culturally. I, and my party, have been working towards that objective for decades. It cannot be said tonight that I am trying to, or that I wish to, score party political points at the expense of the main aim of bringing communities to an understanding, in an atmosphere of togetherness and toleration.
	Simply because of my age, I probably have greater experience than most in the House of parades and the violence surrounding parades. From way back, I remember when the Royal Ulster Constabulary made certain decisions that were affirmed and confirmed by the then Minister for Home Affairs. That was a recipe for disaster in Northern Ireland, and as it would be still were that to happen again.
	We have heard much about the progress being made in Northern Ireland. I welcome that with open arms because I have worked towards it all my life. We should remember that in the negotiations on, and build up to, the contents and implications of the Good Friday agreement, policing was a kernel point and parading a kernel point of that policing. As I remember itcorrect me if I am wrongone of the Patten recommendations was the establishment of an independent, cross-community representative body to make decisions regarding the many contentious parades that were endemic only one decade ago.
	Statistics have been quoted tonight by Members on all Benches about how we are dealing with nearly 4,000 parades, only 4 per cent. of which are potentially contentious, and perhaps only a handful of which result in violence. I cannot see the logic in using those statistics to condemn the work of the Parades Commission, because, logically, I would say that they represent the results of the good work of the Parades Commission. Like any other body, it will make mistakes, for or against whoever has a particular bone to pick with it. Generally speaking, however, it was the commission's removal from local, political and even security decision making that enabled communities by and large to have confidence in it.

Sammy Wilson: rose

Eddie McGrady: I have only just started my speech.
	There are examples in many other areas where matters had to be addressed in a similar fashionfor example, the Fair Employment Commission has had responsibility to deliver fair employment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has responsibility for housingand all have proved successful and non-contentious. If we are to fix something that I believe ain't broken, I would like to know how that is to be done. Over the past decade, each summer during, let us call it, the marching season, the number of incidents of community disturbances and violence has decreased.
	This past summer, with the notable exception of north Belfast and one or two lesser incidents of violence, was the quietest marching season, as we call it, that I can ever remember. If we are to fix this thing that is failing, therefore, I and my communityall communities in factwill want to know how a betterment will be achieved. It should not simply be done at the behest of one party's political demand or as justification for the devolution of policing and justice.
	The community in Northern Ireland believes that the Democratic Unionist party set the abolition of the Parades Commission as a preconditionnot as an argumentfor the devolution of policing and justice. That smacks of political footworkand more credit to the party if it can achieve its objective that waybut do not let us pretend that it has something to do with the evil works of the Parades Commission. It does not. It is all to do with political manoeuvring against the party's own internal opposition and external political opposition.
	I have not seen the detail of the final report of the Ashdown strategic review of the Parades Commissionindeed, I have heard tonight that it is not yet finished. I find that amazing, in view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 6 October, when he said that the Government fully endorsed the recommendations of the Ashdown report and would pay for the implementation of the changes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, have you ever heard of a commission that has not yet reported being fully endorsed by a Government with promises to pony up the money required to implement the as yet unpublished recommendations? What is happening is absolutely bizarre. The people of Northern Ireland know quite well what is going on: promises undertaken and private deals.
	The Minister underscored the point once or twice that there must be cross-party and cross-community support. Where was the consultation or cross-party support before the Government made their decision? There was none whatever; or perhaps it was in another eight or 12-page private letter from Downing street to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which no one in Northern Ireland is privy to. Perhaps the Government do not have the political courage to publish it

William McCrea: rose

Eddie McGrady: Just give me a moment.  [ Interruption. ] I will come back to the hon. Member.
	That is where we are at. The thrust of this evening's motion is the abolition of the Parades Commissionfull stop. It is not about cultural expressions or the God-given right to march. Indeed, I remember asking an eminent human rights barrister about the right to use the Queen's highway to march. He told me something interesting that I never knew, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is this: you do not have the right to march on the Queen's highway; you have the permission to march, which is entirely different. If people's use of that permission is put in jeopardy by the intent of their actions, that right is withdrawn. There is therefore no automatic right to march.
	We had a wonderful presentation from the right hon. Member for Belfast, East in moving the motion about how we are talking about a huge cultural festivity, with tourists flocking from all over the world to it [ Interruption ]and there are a few people who know all about that. Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman did talk about the main parade, with 100,000 or however many Orangemenby the way, I wonder how many signatories to the motion made a declaration of their interest as members of the black, orange or whatever other colour order, but that is all right.
	Belfast central parade was never a matter of contention, because there was common ground. My home town, which is 80 to 85 per cent. nationalist, is a small example of that. The local Orange bands parade every 12 July with no bother at all. They can do so any time they want, as long as they are local and as long as people do not come in from afar deliberately to try to create disruption. Do not be fooled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people's motives are always altruistic or that they want to express their culture and give delight to tourists. There are sometimes other reasons involved.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his brief interruption. What I would say in that context is that, at best, he is damning the Parades Commission with faint praise. We in the SDLP are used to thatwe are damned with faint praise by the Government very often, but that is another story altogether. The Minister reiterates the need for cross-party or cross-community consensus, but I wish that he would engage in it a bit more, so that secret deals are not done inside or behind 10 Downing street.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving wayI thought that his speech would not be inclusive, but I am glad that it is. Does he accept, first, that he was wrong about the origin of the Parades Commission? It did not come about as a result of Patten. Secondly, he was wrong to link the quietest summer that we have had with the Parades Commission. The reason why we had a quiet summer with parades last year was that Sinn Fein has been tamed in its opposition to parades as a result of my party's work to make it accept the rule of law and the police.

Alistair Carmichael: We have had a remarkably measured debate so far. It has been remarkably lacking in contention and controversy[Hon. Members: It has not finished yet!] There may be more to come, of course. I have no doubt that, once some hon. Members hit their stride, they will make every effort to meet our earlier expectations.
	In considering today's debate, I spoke to a number of civic and business groups in Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier about the reasons for choosing this topic for debate. I was prepared to be quite critical of his choice until I heard the way in which he presented his case. The way in which he explained his reasoning did him and his party considerable credit. When I told those civic and business groups about this debate, however, they allto a man and a womansaid, Why on earth are you discussing that? Surely you should be talking about falling manufacturing output, jobs, and the other serious economic issues that Northern Ireland is facing at the moment. I take a great deal of encouragement from that, because it shows that, whereas in the past the entirety of our debates on Northern Ireland would have been on this kind of topic, there is now an enthusiasm in the community there for a broader, more normalised debateas we would see it from this side of the water.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that I have made my point in that regard; it does not need labouring further.
	There is a great deal to be gained from a radical review of parading, with everything on the table. It is surely in everyone's interests to make progress on this issue. Others have already referred to the Ashdown commission and the strategic review of parades that was set up in February 2007. Obviously, given the involvement in that process of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Ashdown, we have been supportive of it throughout, and we remain so. The interim report that the commission has produced is a good one, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the long-term vision that the commission outlines in it. It states:
	Our long term goal is to create a situation where, over time, parades and assemblies in Northern Ireland can be regulated in the same way as they would be in any other European democracy.
	That is a significant ambition. It goes on:
	Our vision is of a society where parades and protests are no longer the focus or cause of community conflict and in which cultural celebration
	of the sort described by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East described
	takes place in a peaceful and respectful manner in a society characterised by tolerance, human rights, equality and confidence in a future shared by all.
	As others have observed, the work of the review has still to be concluded, and we do not therefore have a final report to consider. However, the interim report is a substantial and significant piece of work that is illustrative of the approach that the review team has taken. In our view, the principles laid down in the report are the right ones. The review was right to stress the importance of local dialogue, for example, and the report states that
	the Strategic Review believes that it should be fundamental that conversation, dialogue and local agreement become the normal way of doing things. A simple phone call or conversation can, more often than not, resolve differences and difficulties before they escalate and entail recourse to the mediation or adjudication processes we have devised.
	Indeed, in recent marching seasons, representatives of the Orange Order and community groups have shown real leadership in trying to garner local agreement and foster good relations. It is essential that this should be built upon, as local dialogue can lead to local solutions, thereby preventing the increase in tensions and violence that we saw in the late 1990s and at the beginning of this century.
	Political traditions and identity, including parading, will continue to be central to cultural and social life in Northern Ireland. However, this must be separated from any threat of intimidation or violence. In democratic societies, disputes should be resolved through peaceful dialogue. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said in his speech, freedom of assembly and the freedom to protest are not absolute rights; they have to be balanced against other competing rights in the community.
	In the past, disputes over parading and associated protests have been dealt with by the police, by the Government or by independent arbitrating bodies like the Parades Commission. The strategic review believes that the resolution of disputes over parades cannot be successfully achieved without the engagement of representative politics and of political leadership. Devolution provides an opportunity to move towards normality by reconnecting decisions on these difficult issues to local democratic politics. We therefore welcome in principle the role envisaged for local councils in providing support for the development of skills in dispute resolution, both within the council and its staff, and within the wider community. We hope that this will help with the aim of resolving disputes at local level. To that extent, I have to part company with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
	Feeding into this is the proposal by the strategic review to improve an understanding in Northern Ireland of parades and parading, and of their cultural importance and significance. Indeed, the review team helpfully sought the views of key stakeholders right at the beginning of its deliberations. It identified an immense gulf in understanding of the culture and traditions of each part of the community, which is a prime contributor to the difficulties in reaching local accommodation regarding parades and protest issues. The strategic review stressed, and we agree, that if progress is to be made on parading, it is imperative to address the existing lack of cultural understanding through an effective education programme that includes reconciliation, tolerance, mutual trust, and the protection and vindication of human rights for all.
	We therefore fully support the recommendations that a cultural understanding education programme should be developed under the auspices of the Office of the First Minister and the Office of the Deputy First Minister, in collaboration with local communities, and that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission should seek to raise awareness of the human rights framework relating to public assemblies and the rights of others. The strong emphasis on a rights-based approach to resolving disputes is very welcome. This can provide a framework for the just resolution of disputes, and the means for ensuring consistent decision making in the regulation of public assemblies. To that end, the review recommends that the outcome of any mediated, negotiated or adjudicated dispute should reflect a proper balance between the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the rights of those who live, work, shop, trade, visit and carry on business in the locality affected by an assembly.
	Ultimately, quiet marching seasons and community dialogue are essential if Northern Ireland is to have the shared future that it needs to grow the economy. To this end, the recommendations of the interim report from the strategic review are an important step forward, and we look forward to the review's final recommendations.

Mark Durkan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), although, unfortunately, I disagree with a number of the points that he made. I will refer to those later. It will also be no surprise to him that I support some of the apprehensions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
	The motion states that
	this House recognises that the right of free assembly and peaceful procession is an intrinsic human right,
	yet it has been tabled by a party that has difficulty acknowledging intrinsic human rights in other areas. That is why the Democratic Unionist party is opposed to anything like a meaningful, robust Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, saying that we do not need one, and why it rejects a rights-based approach to a number of other policy areas [ Interruption. ] We can point to all sorts of rhetoric to show that that is what it does.

Mark Durkan: Not yet.
	The motion also
	regrets the attempts by a minority to interfere with the right to parade peacefully.
	I certainly do not want to see anyone's right to parade peacefully interfered with. There are, however, contentions around the question of what that right is, particularly in circumstances in which people feel that a parade that has been introduced or imposed in their area is provocative to the interests, identity and sentiments of the people in that area. That can give rise to the question of whether it is a peaceful parade, and whether it involves the normal right of assembly.
	We need to recognise that there are few rights that apply regardless. We know that in the context of Northern Ireland people's exercise of the right of assembly has given rise to various public order issues, either directly or indirectlyeither as a consequence of the people brought out to parade or to demonstrate in a given situation or as a consequence of those who come out against them and the wider atmosphere created. We know that in Northern Ireland there is a duty on us all to have regard to community relations and the interests of public order, so we need to remember that there are various requirements, in respect of responsibilities for good and proper public conduct, and in respect of the rights that may be asserted on behalf of particular interests to march or demonstrate.
	I recall that there was some dispute about the provenance of the concept of a Parades Commission. Let me first reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down said: the Patten report worked very much on the basis of the Parades Commission already being in place, and fundamentally asserted that the issue should never revert to police officers having to make judgments and decisions on whether to permit parades on the basis of the risk to public orderin essence, on the basis of who represented the biggest threat.
	That is what we had for a number of years in the '90s. The police were caught in a vice between the loyal orders insisting on a right to parade in contentious areas and groups calling themselves residents groups. We heard earlier about what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) believes to have been the orchestrated and syndicated nature of some of those residents groups in opposing marches. We saw for a number of years the police caught having to take those decisions; basically, they called a parading decision on the basis of who offered the biggest threat to public order.
	That created serious situations, but not just for the individual parades, as it also meant that for a number of summers the political process was transfixed. The talks had to stop in 1996 because of the contentions in and around Drumcree. George Mitchell had to stop the talks in Castle Buildings for two weeks while these matters were dealt with and played themselves out. Policing found itself compromiseddecisions were made on the basis not of fairness but of where the biggest threat layand politics found itself transfixed.
	In 1997 talks took place, and again we had Drumcree in early July. There was a new Government, and Mo Mowlam was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Because of Drumcree in 1997, Mo Mowlam, in tears and after only two months in office, offered her resignation to the Social and Democratic Labour party leadershipto John Hume, Seamus Mallon and to Brid Rodgers. I was present at the meeting, too.

Mark Durkan: To clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State made it clear at the time that if, because of our anger and concern at how she had handled the Drumcree issueaccepting the recommendation and bowing to the demand of the Chief Constable that a parade be taken down Garvaghy road under the cover of darkness in the early hours of the morning, against all the assurances and promises that she had givenand if the SDLP leadership of John Hume and Seamus Mallon were saying that they could not trust her, she would resign.
	However, that was not the only part of the conversation. Mo Mowlam also made it clear that she wanted to make sure that a Secretary of State would never again be put in such a position and that a Chief Constable would never again find himself forced to take a decision on parades because of who represented the biggest threat and what was the best way to end the situationeven though there would be huge fallout in community relations and politically. She felt that she had no choice and that no Secretary of State would have had any choice but to bow to the demand and recommendation from the Chief Constable in that instancegiven the terms in which the Chief Constable voiced his recommendationand that that was no way to decide things. She shared with us the determination to ensure that the issue of parades would be insulated from the vexed issue of policing and from politics.
	That is the success of the Parades Commission. Has it got every decision right? No. Has it got every process right, and have its various agents working in different situations always got everything right? No, they have not; but they have broadly succeeded in making sure that politics and policing have been earthed from the convulsions that surround parades.

Mark Durkan: I think that the Parades Commission at various times during its broad life has been reflective. There were controversial appointments, including those that nationalists did not like, particularly when attempts were made to put people from the loyal orders into positions. People asked then, Is that credible? Is that balanced?, but the fact is that, in the round, whatever exceptions people took to its particular decisions or whatever issues people had about particular appointments, the Parades Commission has broadly succeeded in its initial task of defusing the parades situation, which had been becoming ever more serious, partly for the reasons on which the right hon. Member for Belfast, East touched.
	Yes, the parades issue was used by Sinn Fein to contrive difficulties and tensions that would lead to wider political stand-offs. It is very easy to stroke prejudice in one community and to stoke prejudice in another, creating a crisis. That is partly what was happening. However, Sinn Fein were not alone in winding people up at that time. Other political leaders were doing the same and were playing into Sinn Fein's hands. One of the successes of the Parades Commission has been to defuse all that potential.
	It should be remembered that Sinn Fein did not welcome the Parades Commission. They spent a long time not recognising it, attacking its decisions and attacking its processes. The impression is given that only Unionists have ever had difficulty with the Parades Commission and that it was always going to be a home run for nationalistsit never was. The creation of the Parades Commission meant that politics, in coming to the Good Friday agreement and bearing down on it, was not caught transfixed and hamstrung by having to handle the parades issue. It also meant that the operational capacity of policing was freed from having to make the most awkward calls in relation to parades. The police were having to step in when there was a failure of politics or when an absolute contrivance of confrontation was created. The Parades Commission helped to ensure that the new beginning to policing, as recommended by Patten, was able to bed down. Without the Parades Commission taking decisions on parades, God knows how the new Police Service of Northern Ireland would have worked and how the Policing Board would have coped.

Mark Durkan: I will give way shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should be remembered, however, that over the years the Parades Commission has produced criteria and considerations that are becoming ever more transparent. Over time, they have developed in ways that have enabled the commission to respond to some of the concerns and criticisms that have been expressed. What we do not know is what will happen if the commission is to goand DUP Members have made clear that that is their aim: whenever my hon. Friend the Member for South Down suggested that it was the real purpose of the motion, they all said Hear, hear.
	We must ask ourselves whether the objectives and criteria that the Parades Commission have built up will hold any sway in the future. Those who say that the interim recommendations from Lord Ashdown are good, and who just cannot wait for the final report, should ask what Lord Ashdown has said about what weight will be given such considerations in the context of the processes that his review recommends.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I was tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman had driven by the point that I had intended to make, but as we have had no drive-by vetoes in his remarks so far, I will forgive him for that. Does he accept, however, that those who do not believe that the Parades Commission offers the best solution are often frustrated by the fact that in many instances in which they have made every effort to engage with residentsfor example, those in the Portadown district have engaged with everyone and anyone who will talk to themthe commission has given no recognition to their efforts, and that that is part of the frustration felt by those who want to parade and are denied the right to do so?

Mark Durkan: The answer lies in what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said earlier. He produced statistics showing that the overall number of contentious parades had been greatly reduced. He ended up not just talking about the percentage, but saying that if we get away from the Parades Commission and go with the Ashdown proposals, we would resolve the problem of five parades.
	On what basis can we assume that simply implementing the Ashdown proposals will resolve the issue of parades in five areas? How are we to believe that moving away from the Parades Commission will not dangerously reopen issues of parades in other areas that have been broadly resolved thanks to the exhaustive work of the Parades Commission and those who have engaged with it? The idea that we can take everything for granted, and that as long as we adopt the Ashdown proposals those remaining five problems will be solved, is naive in the extreme.
	I must take issue with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The idea that the task of handling the vexed issue of parades should be remitted to councils, particularly the new councils that will be created as a result of the review of public administrationthey are unknown entities at this stage, and there is as yet no agreement on the governance protections in relation to new councilsis also extremely naive.
	There is a danger that those councils will find themselves embroiled in controversies that they did not create or cultivatewhen someone else decides to create a parades dispute. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East produced a quotation from Gerry Adams which made clear that Sinn Fein had deliberately contrived such controversies and cultivated them over time, and the fact is that there are other people out there with the same agenda. Dissidents revealed this year how they were prepared to behave in the Ardoyne. They showed it in a different and perhaps slightly more subtle way in Derry, where they organised, in the guise of an anti-internment demonstration, a counter-demonstration to the Apprentice Boys on the same day in an attempt to create tension and difficulty.
	We know that there are people out there whose agenda is to use the parades issue to breathe life into themselves by creating confrontation and tension that will inevitably persuade people to join one side of the stand-off or another. Will those people not be given an incentive to say, If we can create a difficulty, it will become a problem for the new local council? It will be a technocratic matter, but those people's propaganda will insist that it is a problem for the political body corporate.
	Council officers will not thank anyoneincluding the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlandfor putting them in a position in which they must say Sorry, Ashdown has come up with this idea, and some officials are agents of the council so they must take the heat whenever contention arises, because we wash our hands of it. It would be awful if politicians contrived that situation, only to step aside and allow other public officials to take the blame. Council officers might be put in the position in which the police have found themselves in the past.

Mark Durkan: rose

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I fear that the kind of society the SDLP talks about is a society where there is continued division and continued segregation and that it is about, Our territory and your territory, and you stay in your territory and we'll stay in ours, and ne'er the twain shall meet. That kind of segregation is not the mark of the Northern Ireland we want for the futurethe SDLP as the segregated, democratic and labour party? That is certainly not what we want. We in the DUP want to see a united Northern Ireland. That is our vision: to remove the divisions within our country.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member had 20 minutes to speak. We on this side will have less time, and I want to take the full opportunity to say what I have to say.
	Segregation is not the way forward in Northern Ireland. Dividing up our society is not the way forward. Territorialism is not the way forward. A shared future is what we want; that is what the DUP wants. That is what we are working towards achieving in Stormont. That is what we are working to achieve throughout Northern Irelandand, yes, it would be nice if that were recognised from time to time. Irish nationalism talks, in the constitution of the 26 counties of the Republic, about cherishing all the people of the nation equally. Why do I feel at times rather uncherished by Irish nationalism?
	I should have declared an interest at the beginning of my remarks: I am a member of the Orange Institution and the Royal Black Institution, which are marching orders in Northern Ireland. I am proud to be a member of those institutions, and I believe that it is fundamental to a society that tolerates, that respects and that upholds human rights that people have the right to pursue their culture, uphold their identity and pursue the public expression of their religious beliefs without being interfered with and without the threat of violence.
	With the greatest respect to the SDLP Members, may I say that the mark of the Parades Commission has been the very thing that they have criticised? The commission has been about giving in to the greater threat of violence, as has been seen time and again. The hon. Member for Foyle talked about the Parades Commission rewarding good behaviour, yet on so many occasions that has not been the approach that it has taken. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) will discuss the situation in Portadown. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made clear, that district has been engaged in dialogue with all groups and all types of people. It had been told, There is no walking unless you talk. It has talked and talked to whoever will listen, yet still it is not allowed to walk. Why is that? It is because we are allowing narrow-minded hatred and bigotry to prevent the creation of the kind of society that we want in Northern Ireland, which is one based on tolerance and respect, not segregation. I know that the hon. Member for South Down was well intentioned in what he said, but he talked about my rights being permitted and that is precisely the wrong approach to take to the situation in Northern Ireland. Surely what we want is consensus and people coming together to agree; we do not want a situation in which people say, We own this territory. This is nationalist territory. If you want to walk in it, you need our permission.  [Interruption.]

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was outlining why we believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East made clear, the Parades Commission has become part of the problem, not the solution. The fact that the situation of a number of parades remains unresolved 10 or 12 years or more after its creation testifies to the reality that it has failed to deal with those issues. We believe that one of its fundamental flaws is that it is a body of arbitration. We need processes that deal with mediation, with the facilitation of discussion and with local agreements being reached. We are not getting that from the Parades Commissionit has failed in its remit in that respect and has largely become a body of arbitration. That is not the way in which to build a society where there is tolerance and respect. If we are to create the kind of society envisioned by the authors of the Good Friday/Belfast agreementcall it what one maywe do not just need to see lip service paid to those high principles and objectives; we need to see practical attitudes adopted, changes in attitude and people not being disparaging about parades on 12 July. It is a shame that the hon. Member for South Down would not take it upon himself some year to come to the 12 July parade in Belfast, so that he could see for himself the pageantry and the colour.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Let me be the first to acknowledge the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in promoting dialogue in his home city. However, my point is that it is not good enough to have that dialogue in one area only, as we need to promote it across Northern Ireland. Moreover, it was not the Parades Commission that brought about the success in Londonderry, but local leadership. That is precisely why the model proposed by Lord Ashdown is right: it promotes local leadership, dialogue and solutions, and that is what we want. That is the kind of mature society that we are aiming forthe political maturity that comes with the shared future that is our objective in Northern Ireland.
	I want to end with a question that I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to when he winds up the debate. Representations have been made to me about the chairperson of the Parades Commission, and he will be aware that when she was appointed she made a number of claims about the qualifications that made her eligible for the position. Some doubts are now being cast on those qualifications, and questions have been asked of the Northern Ireland Office about them that I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. Are they valid? I cannot verify that to be the case, but it is my duty as a public representative to ensure that a person who chairs such an important and sensitive body, and who is involved in very sensitive work, is transparent before the public.
	We need to know all the qualifications that the chairperson of the Parades Commission put on her CV when she applied for the post. Were they validated by the Northern Ireland Office when the appointment was made? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point in his response.

William McCrea: I am finding the debate interesting already, and I am sure that my colleagues are anxious to make a contribution to it. I listened to the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), and I assure him that my constituents have a great interest in ensuring that the economy, the health service and many other bread-and-butter issues are attended to with vigour. Those matters are devolved to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the leader of my party and First Minister of Northern Ireland, was right to say that they are constantly raised in the Executive. They will certainly be attended to on behalf of our constituents.
	However, one matter relevant to the peace and stability of our beloved Province remains the responsibility of this Housethe thorny issue of the right to parade without threats or intimidation, and free from republican agitation. This issue must be faced. We heard an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) reminding us that as it was the Queen's highway, we had no right to walk it, but we had permission to walk it. I am happy to get that permission from Her Majesty. I hope the hon. Gentleman will always remember that, and always apply for permission to walk the Queen's highway. I can assure him that those whom we are speaking about, who seek the right to walk the Queen's highway, do so in honour and in support of Her Majesty.
	I am glad to have the opportunity to address the House on a very sensitive yet very important issue that impacts greatly on the people of Northern Ireland. I declare an interest. I was brought up outside a little town, Stewartstown, in the heart of the Mid-Ulster constituency. I was raised in a family that was connected with the Orange Institution. My father was the master of the local lodge and I was proud to walk by his side. I declare an interest: I am a member of the Orange Institution, of the Royal Black Institution and of the Apprentice Boys of Londonderry. I am proud to have the privilege of that membership.
	In all the years that I have walked as a member of those institutions and the lodges, I did so not to give offence to anyone, and we certainly did not desire offence from anyone, either. Sadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East pointed out, Gerry Adams was recorded as having admitted that for years, before the situation happened at Drumcree or in Pomeroy or in other parts of the Province, Sinn Fein and the republican movement had been stirring up an anti-loyalist parade fervour, not because the community dissented from paradesmany nationalists throughout Northern Ireland have been happy to watch the parades.
	I was disappointed that the hon. Member for South Down had missed so much of his life by not coming out and watching a parade. He did not need to come to Belfast. If permission was given to walk the highway in Downpatrick, he could see a colourful parade there. That would do his heart good.

Eddie McGrady: In my comments to the House, I said that the Orange parade takes place every 12 July13 July this yearin Downpatrick, and I do see it.

William McCrea: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that. When I was listening earlier, I confess that I thought that in his years of public life, he had missed the happy occasion of watching the parades in the South Down area.
	As I was pointing out, the local community did not dissent from the parades. But blatant sectarianism stirred up by a group of people in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams admitted that he and his grouping were at the heart of that. That is what brought the anti-parades sentiment to a head. It is clear that right from the beginning, the campaign was engineered and moved from an isolated incident to different areas of the Province, thereby unnecessarily dividing and unsettling the community.
	Sinn Fein created a monster that they do not have the power to contain, although they do not acknowledge that. They were happy to stir up the anti-parade fervour whenever it suited them, but my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) knows that they now seem to be saying that they do not have the power to stop the agitation. They created the monster that is in our society, but now they are not able to capture and quieten it.
	Since that time, republican opposition to loyal order parades has been a running sore. It must be settled. The issue is fundamental to freedom and must be addressed and resolved. Over the years the Democratic Unionist party has campaigned for confidence-building measures among the Unionist community to face the onslaught of more than 30 years of IRA terrorism.
	One of those issues is the issue on the Order Paper tonight. Solving the problems that have been associated with parades is a fundamental prerequisite to political progress and stability in Northern Ireland. Sad to say that over the years, successive Governments have yielded to the threats of those who have opposed our parades. It was easier for them to give in, rather than to stand up and give the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland their rights to parade Her Majesty's highway.
	Let us think about the situation in Drumcree. We have a traditional parade. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, because he tried to say that we were bringing parades into areas where they were not welcome, but such parades were traditional and were welcomed for many, many years, going back 20, 30, 40, 50 or even more years. However, because of deliberate agitation, the traditional parade was taken from the Orange brethren and sisters and regarded as a contentious parade. It is sad to say that instead of dealing with the situation, the Parades Commission as a bodyI know many individual members of the commission, and many of their efforts in this regard have been well-meaningtook the easy option whenever the objectors to a parade were showing muscle, as it were.
	In Maghera, a neighbourhood near where I lived, the Orangemen re-routed their parade to keep the procession away from any disorder from the objectors. What did we find? The commission yielded to the threats and intimidation. That is a totally unacceptable position. It is now a reality that the commission is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.
	I want to allow my hon. Friends to take part in this debate. However, I must first make it abundantly clear to the Government tonight that although they, and the Prime Minister, have put a lot of effort into policing and justice issues, and although I acknowledge the Prime Minister's effort, time and energy on the financial sidewe will make a determination on that, as I am sure others willparading is not a stand-alone issue. The issues of building community confidence will not go away. Parading is one of the issues that must be addressed and attended to. It is a case of acknowledging not only that there is a problem, but that there must be a resolution of the problem, so that when Orange brethren walk the streets of Northern Ireland, they do so without threats and intimidation.
	It was very sad that recently in Rasharkin, we saw, standing among those who are supposed to be dissident republicans, the very members of Sinn Fein. They were standing in the crowd whenever there was violent opposition to the Orangemen walking in the town of Rasharkin. There has to be acknowledgment that the Orangemen and Orangewomen are a part of Northern Ireland's community. They have a proud tradition and also a proud culture. That must be recognised. Some people seek, by threats and intimidation, to remove what is termed the Orange feet from the road, but the Government must realise, as the other parties must, that the Orangemen and Orangewomen are not leaving the Province. We are here to stay. Parading is a vital part of our Province.
	A village neighbouring mine is more than 95 per cent. Unionist, yet there is a Hibernian parade. There is absolutely no problem with that parade, because if people do not go out to see it, they have the freedom of having their tea in their kitchen or they can sit in comfort with their own family, but they are not bothering anyone. Why can the rest of our community not live and let live, and allow us to have a peaceful and stable society, where we can bring prosperity for everyone in the Province that we love?

Iris Robinson: Belatedly, I wish to pull up the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for their lecturing of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Chamber about consultation and inclusion. Back in 1985, their party was happy to ignore 1 million Protestants and their elected representatives and push through the infamous Anglo-Irish agreement, which I believe was the beginning of our troubled history. Their leader at the time, John Hume, when asked why Unionist views were not sought, said that
	they wouldn't have accepted it.
	So much for inclusion.
	There are no contentious parades in the constituency I represent. While I do not wish to be contentious, it is my duty to put on record how we arrived at the difficult scenario that throws up scenes of agitation and violence at parades that, until the outbreak of our troubles, passed off peacefully and were attended by both Protestants and Catholics. My colleagues and I want to see a day when Catholics and Protestants can celebrate the great pageant of 12 July together. That was the case when I was a young girl growing up in Belfast, and I hope that those days will return.
	Parading is one of the most popular and common forms of cultural celebration around the world, from Bastille day in France to the 4 July parades in the US. It brings millions of people across the globe out on to the streets to take part in something that provides enjoyment and colour in many lives.
	Parades have been made a contentious issue by republicans in Northern Ireland since the early 1980sincluding the right of process in Portadown. It has also long been the policy of Sinn Fein to turn the ordinary people of Northern Ireland against parades, by making them appear to be more of a hindrance than a form of celebration.
	The Orangemen are the real victims in all this. It is the residents of the Garvaghy road and the Ormeau road who sought, through a sectarian campaign, to make the order look bad by playing the victim themselves. The residents do not like to talk about their blinkered and sectarian motives.
	In the early to mid-1990s, Sinn Fein, through so-called residents' groups, actively campaigned to disrupt and stop Orangemen walking their traditional routes. Parades that traditionally took place in Drumcree, Portadown, County Armagh and the Ormeau road in south Belfast immediately come to mind. Orangemen in Drumcree had walked their route for at least 150 years, largely without trouble, until republicans focused on parades. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has obviously been researching the same material as I have, but it is worth reiterating what Gerry Adams said on the issue:
	Ask any activist in the north, did Drumcree happen by accident, and they will tell you 'no'. Three years of work on the Lower Ormeau Road, Portadown, and parts of Fermanagh and Newry, Armagh and in Bellaghy, and up in Derry.
	Londonderry
	Three years of work went into creating that situation and fair play to those people who put the work in. They are the type of scene changes that we have to focus on and develop and exploit.
	I did not hear the hon. Members for Foyle and for South Down put down that sort of mentality. Instead, they berated us at every turn [ Interruption. ] If they did, I did not hear it and I apologise

Iris Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification, but I honestly did not hear that. He went on quite some time.
	What Mr. Adams demonstrates here is his party's blatant disregard for traditional parading and his use of it for political gain. This is a tactic employed by Sinn Fein in order to heighten sectarian tensions after the ceasefires, and to turn the spotlight on Unionists in order to make us as a people look sectarian and bigoted. It is its aim to label loyalists and Unionists as sectarian.
	Nationalists and republicans have sought to organise protests labelled as peaceful. This year, we saw violent behaviour on the Springfield road in the middle of the annual Whiterock parade. Orangemen waited up to one hour to gain access through the Workman's gate, which separates the Springfield road from the Shankill. When the Orangemen walked through they were pelted with missiles and verbal abuse. Many of those waiting at the other side of the gate were not from the area and had been transported in to allow the media to get some good photographs, knowing that those images would be sent around the world for all to see.
	We see sectarian tensions being stirred up in many areas of County Antrim, namely Dunloy and Rasharkin. Members of the loyal orders as well as band members who live locally have been subject to abuse on and off parade as well as having their homes attacked. That has been orchestrated by Sinn Fein, once again seeking to stir and create angry confrontations in the north Antrim area of Rasharkin. Protestants are being chased from small predominantly Catholic towns that were previously evenly mixed in north Antrim. Only a few weeks ago a man had his house attacked for the second time this year. He is now going to leave his home. Such people need help from the Northern Ireland Office, and they need protection.
	Parading in Northern Ireland is viewed by Sinn Fein as a product of British imperialism. It has been jumped upon by Sinn Fein, which argues that Unionists have no culture and no identity. It sees it as something that it can manipulate and undermine for its benefit. In the early 1990s, Gerry Adams, a self-proclaimed author, argued that Ireland would not be free until all elements of Britishness were removed from the state of Northern Ireland. That included Orange parades. When one reads the stories of Drumcree, one comes to understand what republicans sought to do. In many ways they were successful. However, it highlights the strength and power of republicanism and how they sought to undermine the rights of those men wanting to parade. It demonstrates the fascist nature of Sinn Fein.
	We now have Sinn Fein blocking Orangemen from parading through the Parades Commission, and waving the word dialogue in front of the commission. This summer we had the self-proclaimed peacemaker, Gerry Adams, offer to have talks with the Orange Order. This image of Gerry Adams today contradicts the real picture of him over 10 years ago.
	On 14 July this year, Martin McGuinness said:
	If the Orange Order are serious about wanting nationalist and republican political leaders to respect them, then they need to respect our community and respect the wishes of the vast majority of people to live in peace free from sectarian harassment. To date the leadership of the Orange Order have refused to meet with Sinn Fein, the party most nationalists actually vote for. What message does that send out about respecting the nationalist community? The Orange Order need to sit down face to face with Sinn Fein and I once again today extend that invitation.
	This statement stinks of hypocrisy. Sinn Fein is seeking to play the honest broker here, despite planting the seeds of conflict over parades.
	The Parades Commission, established in 1998, sought to regulate parades in Northern Ireland, and it is felt by many in the Unionist community that the Parades Commission, as an unelected organisation, simply seeks to discriminate against it as a community. Through its unelected representatives, put there by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it seeks to act for the Northern Ireland Office. Its set up is simply seen as creating bureaucracy and setting hurdles for bands and lodges to jump through. As a body appointed and set up by the Government it is not representative of the community, nor is it publicly accountable. It needs to go. That is something that my party has long campaigned for.
	I do not wish to go into history in much detail, but I have to say this. Many people in this very House would not be standing here if it were not for the efforts of King William of Orange who defeated King James at the Boyne. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the revolution of 1688. I accept that times have changed, but we must not forget our history.
	Orangemen have a right to parade. That right is on the same level as the freedoms of speech and protest. These rights are being undermined by our Government, who have bought into the Sinn Fein idea that the Orange Order is part of the problem, just as they did with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment. As a Government who talk about community inclusion and cohesion and about building a multicultural society, it is obvious that they seek to exclude Northern Ireland Orangemen from that policy.
	I am calling on our Government to understand Unionist history, identity and culturemuch of which is shared with the rest of this United Kingdom. Our Government have sought to erase our identity by the removal of all things British, from symbols to flags to the dilution of the English language through the promotion of Irish. The people of Ulster are some of the most loyal subjects of this kingdom, yet our Government continue to dance to the republican record. I urge the Government to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members from my party and seek consensus on a way of dealing with this issue once and for all.

Gregory Campbell: Parading is very important to many people in Northern Ireland; it is a fundamental aspect of cultural commemoration. In fact, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, there are several thousand parades in Northern Ireland. Many are uniformed youth organisation parades, church parades and mayors' parades that are totally innocuous and that are not referred to the Parades Commission or anyone else, because they proceed without let or hindrance on a regular basis.
	A small number of parades that have been mentioned this evening and on many occasions in recent years have been subject to problems as a result of an orchestrated campaign against them. For a moment or two, I want to discuss an issue that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and that is oftentimes not referred to. There are parades in Northern Ireland, such as the one that I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) will refer to shortly, which goes close to the Garvaghy road and the nationalist area there, and the parade in Rasharkin in County Antrim, a village where there is a Catholic majority. However, parades in other parts of Northern Ireland are nationalist in nature and they go through predominantly Unionist towns and villages. That, for some reason, receives very little attention or media interest. The reason for that is that they are not controversial, because no one in those villages or towns decides to orchestrate planned opposition to those parades.
	I refer to parades such as those that take place in Desertmartin, in Kilkeel in south Down and in Limavady in my constituency each St. Patrick's day. Those towns are predominantly Unionist or predominantly Protestant; the parades are nationalist or Catholic parades. The host community, as they are sometimes called by those who object to Orange parades, does not object to those parades taking place. They are therefore not referred to the Parades Commission, there is no controversy and no dispute and they proceed unhindered. The problem, of course, is that in the other areas, such as Portadown and Rasharkin, there is not the same reaction. Communities in those areas decide that they will orchestrate opposition and objection and we therefore have some of the problems that have been mentioned.
	On a number of occasions in recent weeks, it has been said that the entire issue of policing and justice is part of the completion process in our devolutionary journey. Members have also said that, without the issue of parading being resolved, the devolution of those powers would be a hollow achievement that might, in fact, backfire badly. I concur with that opinion, because, otherwise, we could have the annual prospectthis July, next July and the July after thatof an unresolved problem that is kept at the forefront of people's minds. There has been agitation by dissidents, and I accept the Government's view on that agitation; however, on several occasions there has also been agitation by Sinn Fein representatives.
	For example, in Rasharkin, the local Assembly Member was, unfortunately, identified as being part of a crowd in vocal and subsequently violent opposition to the loyal order parade that was taking place. That is more than deeply regrettable; it is something that must be resolved. That political party, Sinn Fein, needs to do much more in ensuring that its MLAs and other public representatives not only do less to provoke tension, but do more to try to ensure that there is less opposition to parades. We need to move forward, beyond the Parades Commission, and I know that the Minister in his early submission indicated that, whatever the commission's relevance 11 years ago, times have moved on. They have, and I hope that we can get the Ashdown review out in the open and hear comments that are based on the facts, as opposed to people's fears or concerns about what it might propose.
	I shall close by mentioning further moves that Sinn Fein needs to make to try to defuse tensions and local problems in local areas. For example, in my constituency just last week, the local Sinn Fein Assembly Member, Mr. Francie Brolly, who is aged 71, announced that he intends to stand down from the Assembly within the next few weeks. At the close of any career, be it in politics or other parts of the republican movement, a person who steps to one side can do much to defuse tensions in relation to parades and other matters that need to be resolved, such as the Claudy bomb in 1972. If the hon. Member who represents Sinn Fein in that House had some revelations or disclosures to make about any part that he may have played, along with the late Father James Chesney, many people would I am sure welcome that closure. We all need to work towards further progress on parades in order to bring closure to an aspect of our past and to allow people to parade in peace and security.

David Simpson: I'm not that old, no.
	I am aware that the significance and centrality of parading in Northern Ireland is not always fully appreciated or understood on the mainland, but, whatever view one holds of Ulster's parading tradition, the motion raises some fundamental points of principle that go to the heart of democracy. Famously, it has been said, I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
	I am not asking everyone to share the importance attached to parading by many people in Ulster, including myself, but surely the default position must always be to defend the basic right to assemble and to process freely. The right of free assembly and procession is a human right long fought for and hard won. A nation such as this, at a time such as this, when we remember the sacrifice of those, numbered in their millions, who fell in defence of basic freedoms, should above all others defend and cherish those basic rights and freedoms.
	Indeed, I will go further. If this freedom is to be denied, those who would deny it must present a cast-iron court case for that denialbut that has not happened in Northern Ireland. The right to assemble and process on the streets of Ulster has been challenged by so-called residents groups, which were spawned largely by Sinn Fein. That was not done out of a sense of offence, but purely for political reasons and political advantage. That has even been claimed by Gerry Adams. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) outlined the programme shown in prime time on RT� in 1997, a brief part of which says:
	Three years of work went into creating that situation and fair play to those people who put the work in. They are the type of scene changes that we have to focus on and develop and
	the key word
	exploit.
	So disputes around parades are not about offence or triumphalism; they are not about the intimidation of residents. They are a cynical manoeuvre by Sinn Fein to increase their political support. The history of these disputes has proved that to be the case. Sinn Fein have been fully prepared to use the parading issue as a tool in their overall strategy. When it suits them, they defuse tension and reduce open opposition to loyal order marches. On the other hand, when it suits them, they can ratchet up tension.
	Let me ask the House this: how does that help to build public confidence? Would not a permanent end to the republican culture war against the loyal orders greatly help the creation of that confidence? Gerry Adams said recently that there will be a place for the loyal orders in a united Irelandhow gracious of him. Yet he is the very same person who has opposed their legitimate place in Northern Ireland right up to this present day. Sadly, the law enforcement authorities have been tainted with the same sort of attitude. The concerns of politically motivated residents groups are treated on a par with those of the loyal orders. As a result, the right of British citizens to assemble and parade is denied, often on very spurious grounds.
	In my own constituency we have one of the most infamous examples of that. Portadown Orangemen seeking to return from their annual service at Drumcree parish church have been unable to do so for well over a decade, despite that parade's having taken place for well over 150 years. The Northern Ireland Parades Commission repeatedly calls for local agreement to be reached in such situations. The Ashdown review of parading also places great emphasis on dialogue and mediation. The local Orange district has agreed to enter into dialogue without any preconditions. One person continues to prevent that from taking place: Mr. Brendan McKenna of the local residents group.
	Brendan McKenna is the one person who refuses to talkand from his perspective, why should he? He has absolutely no incentive to do so. All that he has to do is sit with his arms folded as the Parades Commission does his work for him. Every yearno, I will go furtherevery week he knows that it will ban the parade. Mr. McKenna, the enemy of civil and religious liberty, is rewarded for refusing to talk. Meanwhile, those who are willing to talk are continually penalised. That utter and craven failure on the part of the Parades Commission is evidence of why it has failed, why it is part of the problem rather than of the solution, and why it must be got rid of. It is a disgrace that individuals such as the Brendan McKennas of this world can hold the entire community to ransom, and that he is facilitated in his bigotry by the Parades Commission.
	I cite Drumcree because I am very familiar with it, but I can cite other examples in my constituency. For example, there is the ongoing attempt by republicans to do in Lurgan what they have done in Drumcree. They are attempting to turn parts of the town centre into no-go areas, and they have attempted to deny the loyal orders use of the public transport there as they travel to other parts of the Province for larger parades.
	Similar scenarios can be found in different parts of Northern Ireland. On a slightly different but related matter, I can cite the situation in the town of Banbridge, again in my constituency, where republicans are up to their necks in a campaign aimed at sectarianising the town over the issues of flags and some parades. They are trying to create community tensions where none had previously existed. Is that a recipe for public confidence?
	There are other problems in other parts of Northern Ireland. I think of the ongoing campaign of sectarian intimidation in places such as Rasharkin, where the Protestant community has been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of abuse, intimidation and violence, all with the sole aim of driving it out of the village. One tactic has been to oppose parades in the village, and who is intimately involved in each protest? It is the local Sinn Fein Member of the Legislative Assembly. Who has people involved at the heart of local residents groups? That is rightonce again, it is Sinn Fein. Does the Minister believe that that is a recipe for building public confidence?
	Moving forward, everyone has a part to play. As I indicated at the start of my speech, as an Orangeman I know that the loyal orders will not be found wanting. They responded positively to Lord Ashdown's review. The Orange Order has stated that it remains committed to playing a full part in creating a Northern Ireland that is a peaceful, stable and fair society founded on mutual respect and trust. The loyal orders have also been at the forefront of initiatives designed to develop the community and tourist potential of parades, particularly around 12 July. On that matter I commend my Democratic Unionist party colleagues, the Tourism Minister, Arlene Foster and the Culture Minister, Nelson McCausland for their practical help and support.  [Interruption.] And their predecessors.
	All of us must do what we can to address and resolve the parading issue, and if it is to be resolved, the sentiments contained in the motion would be a good place to start. I support the motion; would that all hon. Members did the same.

Sammy Wilson: Unlike many of my colleagues who have spoken this evening, I am not one of Northern Ireland's serial paraders, but I do believe that the issue is important. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who initially took the view that perhaps there were more important matters to discuss, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, we have on other occasions sought to raise other issues, such as the economy. Of course, however, many of those issues are now dealt with by the devolved Administration, so that is where the debate on them takes place.
	The debate concerns an issue that, for a number of reasons, is important. The first is that the treatment of one sectiona decent sectionof Ulster society by the Parades Commission has caused deep hurt. I think of the fears and hurt of those people, many of whom are constituents of mine. As I said, I am not a member of an Orange lodge, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Royal Black Institution or any such order. However, many of the people involved are good, solid, law-abiding citizens who believe that the actions and intervention of the commission in the activities in which they wish to engage regularlyfor example, marching to display their culture, history and religious beliefsalmost sullies those honourable activities.
	The subject is important for a second reason that has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members already. We are moving towards the completion of devolution in Northern Ireland, and a lot of hard work has gone into it. I believe that it is a desirable goal and we should pursue it vigorously. However, if we are to complete the devolution of policing and justice, we cannot do it in isolation from ending the contention surrounding the parades issue. If anything will destabilise policing and justice, it is the fact that we remain without the machinery to resolve the contentious parades in Northern Ireland. As others have pointed out, the Parades Commission has not been the vehicle for doing that, despite some of the points made by the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I want to address their points in a moment or two. However, for those two reasons, it is important that the issue is addressed.
	The anger against the Parades Commission has been generated for a number of reasons. First, every parade or public demonstrationindeed, every public activity on the streets of Northern Irelandmust first be referred to the commission. I get people coming to me in my constituency who want to arrange motorbike ride-outs and classic car rallies, as well as civic parades and sometimes church parades for uniformed organisations. All of them have to be referred to the commission. The point that many of them make to me is that there is nothing contentious about their activitiesin fact, many of them are cross-community activities. Yet they have to pass through the filter of the Parades Commission and be applied for. Many of the Orange parades and those of other institutions are not contentious either, but they have to be filtered through the commission as well. The implication is always that there is something contentious about the parades. People resent that.
	Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) pointed out, the Parades Commission is an arbitrator, but does not seek to facilitate or mediate in these contentious situations. Sometimes, arbitration itself can do damage. People have come into my office complaining about the prescriptive conditions laid down by the commission. A pedantic jobsworth in the Police Service of Northern Ireland might apply those prescriptive conditions if, for example, a parade has not started at 7 o'clock on the dot, even though it might be waiting for a busload of people to arrive.
	Sometimes that busload of people will be held up as a result of police activity. If the parade waits two or three minutes for them to arrive, the police will want to take action and refer the parade back to the Parades Commission because of a breach of the conditions. Had the jobsworth thought it through, he would have realised that it would be far better to have everybody included in the parade, rather than having some stragglers arriving after it starts. That is one of the problems, and I could give lots of other examples. Being that prescriptive sometimes causes problems that are not necessary and that, had the parade not been referred to the Parades Commission in the first place, would not have arisen.
	The third reason is the bias that is seen in the Parades Commission, whether in its make-upthere is a long history of objections to what is seen as its biased make-upor, even more so, in the decisions that it makes. In many instances, especially where there are contentious parades, those decisions seem to be made on the basis of who presents the biggest threat. The more that a group is prepared to lean on people orthis is the worst of itthe more that it has a history of being able not only to make the threat but to deliver it, the more weight the Parades Commission seems to give to its arguments.
	The suggestion has been made that taking away the Parades Commission would put the police in the front line. However, on many occasions people have come to me and said, Look, we believe we made a good case to the Parades Commission. We don't know how they reached their decision at the end of the day, but we ticked all the boxes that they asked us to tick. However, the police came in afterwards and, on the basis of what they said, the attitude of the Parades Commission changed. Whether the hon. Members for Foyle and for South Down like it or not, the police already have an input. They are already in the front line and are part of the decision-making process with the Parades Commission anyhow.
	I believe that in many instances the police make the judgment as to who presents the biggest threat. As most of those who are involved in the loyal orders are ordinary, decent, hard-working, law-abiding, solid citizens, the judgment is that they are not the ones who will cause the trouble. Rather, the judgment is that those who, through protest, have a record of causing street disorder are the ones to whom we must pay most attention. Therefore, the bias is towards them.
	The hon. Member for Foyle talked about what would happen if we disturbed the Parades Commission. Despite the fact that the SDLP claims to be a radical organisation, there is no group of people who want to maintain the status quo and the establishment more, regardless of how badly it is seen to work, how inadequate it is or how much times have changed. The SDLP will always want to defend the status quo, and as the Parades Commission came about not as a result of the Patten commission, but nevertheless because of nationalist demands, it must stay, even if it does not work, even if there is a better way and even if there are still things that it has been unable to resolve.
	A number of arguments have been put forward. The first is that we should look at how many parades take place without any violence or confrontation, as if that were down to the Parades Commission. In many cases the Parades Commission simply has no input. It receives the applications and rubber-stamps them, but it does not do anything else. That parades take place without violence is down to the good sense and good community relations that exist in a place, so let us not attribute successes to the Parades Commission for which it is not responsible.

Mark Durkan: Like me, the hon. Member will have listened to many of his colleagues saying that Sinn Fein is the problem. They have outlined Sinn Fein's agenda and motives, which they say are still current in relation to this issue, but none of them has said how the Ashdown proposals will get around the problemif that is the problem.

Christopher Fraser: I am clearly not standing here as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, but I serve on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and I am chairman of the all-party group on Northern Ireland. This issue has come up many times in debates held by those different groups when they have met in this House. I have been listening to the contributions from colleagues this evening, whether I was in the Chamber or detained elsewhere, and I would like to put to the Minister several questions that have not yet been addressed.
	First, I understood that, under the original legislation, the timetable was for the recommendations of the strategic reviews to be implemented in the spring of this year. I think we all understood that to be the case. When does the Minister expect the final report to be published? Given that Ministers made estimates of the financial implications of the recommendations, based on the interim report, does he accept that those should be accounted for in the proposed financial settlement? I am not quite sure, after what he said earlier, whether that is the case.
	How does the Minister expect to implement the strategic review's final recommendations? Does he expect the proposals to be incorporated into the detail of a wider criminal justice and policing handover? If devolution of criminal justice and policing is delayed, for whatever reason, will the Government consider legislating for parades separately? I am not sure that what the Minister said earlier went as far as that, so I would be most grateful if he would clarify it.
	Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the importance of bringing investment and prosperity to Northern Ireland, which is crucial to getting these issues sorted and ensuring that Northern Ireland participates as fully as it should in the economic success of the United Kingdom. I know from talking to people in the Province that they want to play their part. It is terribly important to deal with this issue sensitively, so that people feel that their voice is being heard, and they can go about their business lawfully in the knowledge that they have the support not just of this House, but of the wider community.
	Can the Minister assure the House that devolution of criminal justice and policing will not be rushed throughbefore a general election, for exampleat the expense of getting things right? If we get it wrong, we shall get it wrong for a very long time, so we need to think very seriously about these issues.
	Lord Ashdown's interim recommendations were discussed earlier. He advocated a strong role for local councils, but does the Minister accept that councils are too partisan on occasions, and that there are valid concerns that their role could undermine mediation? Does he agree that safeguards to account for the political allegiances of councils need to be considered and dealt with in this respect?
	It is likely that 11 super-councils will be created by 2011, and will have a key role in dealing with parade mediation. Is the Minister confident that the transition will be smooth? Parades have historically brought to the fore the political and social tensions that still exist, as we know, as an undercurrent in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that it is crucial for peaceful parading not to be undermined by potential teething problems resulting from local government reform?
	Finally, the strategic review's interim report did not include recommendations relating to the Drumcree and Ormeau road parades. Is the Minister concerned that at the interim stage of the strategic review, agreement was not reached on the two parades that are perhaps in greatest need of guidance?

Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), who does a splendid job as chairman of the all-party Northern Ireland group, and who is also a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee. I thank him for his interest in Northern Ireland. He was absolutely right to say that with policing and justice devolution, the crucial thing is to get it rightsomething that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said on a number of occasions. That must be the principle that guides us all in this context. As has been said, if we get this wrong, generations thereafter will bear the cost.
	We have had an extremely good debate. As a number of speakers have said, it has been a measured debate, and I think that we have explored the issues thoroughly in the short time available. I want to commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, the leader of our party, for the way in which he introduced the debate. He set out clearly the importance of this issue to the people of Northern Irelandthe people whom we representand, indeed, to the whole future of the stability of political institutions in Northern Ireland.
	Some Members, notably the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), commented on the choice of topic. I commend him for voicing his concerns on this matter. He eventually acknowledged that we had been sincere in tabling the motion, because we wanted to tackle a running sore in politics and in the community in Northern Ireland. It is true that if we are to tackle the great issues involved in putting Northern Ireland on a more prosperous and better footing for everyone's benefit, we must deal with the important matters that we are debating tonight, and it is appropriate that we are discussing them at the present juncture. Far too often we embark on contentious issues involving parading much too late in the calendar cycle, when controversy is at its height. Now the parading season is past, but we still have some time ahead of us, and I believe that we should use it constructively to air the issues and ensure that progress is made.
	All too frequently the criticism from those in the loyal orders, and those who engage and seek to promote engagement, has been that when they spend their time trying to make progress and enter into debate and dialogue, no agreement is reached. Then the Parades Commission steps in, and does not recognise the efforts that have been made throughout the winter and spring months. All that is ignored and set aside, and the same or worse determinations are made each year, which only exacerbates the problem rather than leading to any kind of solution. It acts as a disincentive, and demoralises those who want to engage in debate and dialogue.
	A number of Members have mentioned the importance of this issue in the context of the stability of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) observed that, in terms of parades, this had been the quietest year for a long time. I remind him that in the aftermath of this year's parade past the Ardoyne shops in my constituency, guns and blast bombs were used on the streets of Belfast. I would not necessarily describe it as one of the quietest years on record.
	We must ensure that all elements of that kind are dealt with. People still want to cause disturbance and violence on our streets, and we must put an end to that. It is important for us, as parties in Northern Ireland, to demonstrate that we will not allow it to continue. We must make clear that we will not tolerate circumstances in which every year, before, on and after 12 July, we must stand on the streets of Belfast and elsewhere trying to calm people down and trying to work with others to restrain them from becoming involved in violence or anything like it. We must ensure that progress can be made.
	Many Members recalled the history of this whole dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and others referred to the significant role played by Sinn Fein in the fomenting of the trouble, and referred particularly to the statements made by Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams. There is no doubt about the significant role that Sinn Fein have played in the circumstances with which we are now having to grapple, but as others have said, it is important to highlight the tourism potential in Orange and loyal order parades.
	As a member of the Loyal Orange Institution as well as the Apprentice Boys of Derry, I am proud to say that the number of people who watch our parades is significantly on the increase. An independent survey conducted this year found that 62 per cent. of those who were in Belfast city centre on 13 July had never been at a parade before, and 98 per cent. said they would be back next year. Furthermore, the bed occupancy rate in Belfast hotels was 80 per cent., and some 200,000 to 250,000 people watched the event. The significance of all this is that while it is true that many people throughout the kingdom might ask about the relevance or vital importance of parading, in Northern Irelandand, indeed, in some other parts of the United Kingdom, although less sothis issue goes to the heart of the community.
	It certainly goes to the heart of the community that DUP Members represent. It is part of our culture and identity, and thoseGerry Adams, Sinn Fein and otherswho decided to seek political advantage from the issue, and to disrupt the parades through violence and intimidation, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that in doing that they would strike at the very heart of what makes a lot of Unionists and Protestant people in Northern Ireland tick. We have to find a way through these problems and difficulties, and ensure that those who want to foment trouble and disorder do not succeed.
	It is right to put on record, as many already have, a tribute to those in local communities who have dedicated many hoursoften at great personal expense, as they might have sacrificed time with their families, or time to look after their own intereststo their own community by stewarding parades and helping voluntarily to ensure that there was a peaceful outcome. They deserve to be commended throughout communities in Northern Ireland, as do those who go on parade and who, despite severe provocation on many occasionsdespite being spat upon, having stones fired at them, and suffering verbal abuse and physical violencehave 100 per cent. of the time, certainly in recent years, been absolutely peaceful and dedicated to behaving in an entirely civil, peaceful and democratic way.
	I was alarmed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) when he sought to redefine what a peaceful parade was. He argued that a parade might not be peaceful if it were contended, or if there was controversy surrounding it as a result of opposition from others. I totally reject that. The fact of the matter is that those who go on the parades in Northern Ireland do so entirely peacefully, and I wholly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the ordinary decency of the people who are involved in the loyal orders, and who come out on parade and do not want to get involved in violence in any shape or form.
	A lot of our debate has necessarily centred on the Parades Commission and the strategic review of parading. The hon. Members for Foyle and for South Down put up a defence of the Parades Commission. I have to say that I do not agree with the Minister's praise for the work of the Parades Commission. I agree with my party colleagues who have talked about the problems that the commission has caused by the way it has gone about its work, without acknowledging the progress that has been made where there has been engagement, and by setting its face against recognising and rewarding those who have engaged in good faith in trying to move things forward, and by instead rewarding those who have sat on their hands and done nothing except refuse to make progress.
	Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) talked about the good deeds and good work that the Parades Commission had done, and said that although it does not enjoy complete support, it does enjoy some support. He is right to say that it enjoys some support, but it enjoys very little support in the Unionist community, as I hope he will know and acknowledge. That is why I was more encouraged by what the Minister said when he intervened in the debate and talked about the need for consensus, because that goes to the heart of things.
	The commission deals with one of the most contentious issues in Northern Ireland, and it is roundly lacking in support right across the Unionist community. It might have some support from elsewhere, as we have heard from those on the Social Democratic and Labour party Benches and others in the nationalist community, but I dare say that if an opinion poll were conducted in the Unionist communitythis has been reflected by the speeches made tonighthardly any support would be found for the commission. It is clear that the argument has been won, and despite the last-gasp efforts of the SDLP to fly the flag for the Parades Commission, everybody recognises that its day is done, that it will have to be replaced, and that it will be replaced in due course.
	There was a great deal of misunderstandingI do not know whether it was due to a lack of information or whether it was deliberatein what the hon. Member for South Down and others said about the role of the councils in the new dispensation under the Ashdown review; they displayed a lack of knowledge about the way in which the councils are involved in this matter. It is important that we recognise that far too often the Parades Commission has responded to threats, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who knows full well the situation in his constituency; it is one of the most contentious and controversial situations. He pointed out the unwillingness of those who are protesting against the Orangemen in that area to engage in a constructive way forward.
	In the couple of minutes left available to me I wish to make some more general remarks. We have framed our motion in the context of the possibility of the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland. There has been talk of financial packages and so on, and they are vital. I commend the tremendous work that has been done, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, the leader of my party, in achieving tremendous progress on a financial package for Northern Ireland in relation to policing and justice. I also commend the contribution made and the work put in by the Government on that subject. However, we must remember and reiterate the fact that for us, the overriding issue is confidence in the community, and this is one key aspect of ensuring that there is confidence in the community.
	One cannot have confidence in the community when people who are in government, sharing power, will not share a public road. One cannot have confidence in a situation where people are saying that they want to share a future but they will not say that someone is entitled to share a public highway. Until we reach a situation where there is mutual respect and a recognition that the loyal orders have the right to parade the public highway in a peaceful and democratic way, it is pointless talking about trying to create confidence. We need to ensure that confidence exists, and this area is a vital component of it. It is essential that we get resolution on these issues, because we cannot afford to enter any more yearsnext year or the year after thatwith them unresolved, especially if progress is to be made on policing and justice.

Paul Goggins: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall make somenecessarily briefremarks. That this has been a good debate reflects both the importance of the issue and the controversy that it can still sometimes create as the debate ensues. I wish to respond to specific questions put by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) about the qualifications of the chair of the Parades Commission, Mrs. Rena Shepherd. He will understand that no specific qualifications were required for that post, so it was not appropriate, or indeed necessary, for checks to be carried out on qualifications as a part of the appointment process. However, I am sure that he and others will be reassured to learn that Mrs. Shepherd has confirmed to officials that her qualifications are, indeed, as stated on the record.
	I have said throughout the debate that respect and dialogue are the twin foundation stones on which we must take things forward. Whatever model is usedthe Parades Commission or something differentrespect and dialogue are the answer, in the end, to the parades issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House recognises that the right of free assembly and peaceful procession is an intrinsic human right and an important part of the British heritage; acknowledges the cultural significance of parading in Northern Ireland and its tourist potential; regrets the attempts by a minority to interfere with the right to parade peacefully; and accepts that it is a political imperative to resolve such matters, especially in a context where it is proposed to devolve policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order , 20 October , and Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That, in accordance with rule 56 (1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, the sealed packets containing the completed corresponding number lists forwarded to the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy following the Glenrothes by-election on 6 November 2008 (1) shall not be destroyed by the sheriff clerk other than as provided for in the protocol agreed among the Secretary of State for Scotland, the electoral registration officer for Fife, the returning officer for the Glenrothes parliamentary constituency and the sheriff clerk for the Kirkcaldy sheriff court district and dated 16 and 19 October 2009 (Cm 7729); (2) may be delivered by that sheriff clerk to that returning officer; and (3) may be opened by that returning officer in order that a substitute marked copy of the register of electors may be made available for public inspection, all in accordance with and subject to the conditions specified in that protocol. 118(6) and Order of 20 October (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.

That the Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1929), dated 21 July 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 July, be approved. ( Mark Tami .)
	 Question agreed to.

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11060/09, which sets out the Commission's view of the next five year work programme in the field of Justice and Home Affairs; and supports the position that the Government takes on its direction. (M ark Tami .)
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House

Motion made,
	 That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.( M ark Tami .)

Motion made,
	 That Mary Creagh be discharged from the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be added.( M ark Tami )

That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added . (Mark Tami .)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Watts.)

Crispin Blunt: I am very grateful to have the opportunity tonight to raise the case of my constituent Fabio Alves-Nunes who died, avoidably, aged five. By unhappy coincidence, I also attended earlier today the funeral of my constituent, Lance Corporal James Hill of the Coldstream Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan aged 23. It is sad to reflect that the bereaved families live only about 100 yards apart.
	The death of a young person is especially harrowing, and never more so than when it is avoidable. Everyone associated with it will plague themselves with the question, What if I had acted differently? It will be the parents who feel the loss most keenly and who will pose that question most self-critically.
	Corporal Hill's parents know that their adult son chose to go into the Army, and without such decisions by young men and women our nation would be defenceless. Equally, Fabio's parents, Ricardo and Anna, know rationally that they are in no way responsible for his death. I hope that this debate will be another opportunity to reinforce that emotionally.
	The key events in this sad story are as follows. On 7 February 2008, Fabio presented with the symptoms of chickenpox. The following day, Anna asked her GP practice whether he should be seen by a doctor. The surgery receptionist said no. His parents could not have been expected to know about the dangerous link between eczema and chickenpox, but a check of his record at this stage would have revealed that.
	Fabio's condition deteriorated at home. He was not eating and hardly drinking; his bedding was soaked in a pinkish fluid; his clothes were being changed three or four times a day. On 13 February his parents requested a home visit by the GP. This was declined. The receptionist told them not to be alarmed, that chickenpox can look worse than it is, and to put him in cold water and administer Calpol. The next day they spoke again to a GP, who advised them to call the out-of-hours service as the practice was about to close. When they did this, they were told that the wait could be lengthy.
	At this point Anna and her brother drove Fabio to East Surrey hospital. He was quickly discharged home in circumstances to which I will return, then cared for at home for another two days before his parents called an ambulance on the morning of Sunday 17 February. It took 24 hours for the hospital to realise the critical nature of his condition and transfer him to the paediatric intensive care unit at St. Evelina's in London. Doctors there were unable to save him ,and Fabio died on 1 March 2008.
	To the hospital's credit, staff quickly realised that they had a disaster on their hands and set up a review. A serious untoward incident was declared by the trust on 20 February 2008 following concerns raised by the team who took over Fabio's case on the Monday morning. This led to an internal and an external investigation of Fabio's care.
	The external investigation was led by Christine Gyles, Assistant Director of Governance at Darent Valley hospital, assisted by two consultant paediatricians and their senior nurse for children's services. It is an excellent and detailed piece of work, unsparing of the trust in its conclusions. It ran from May to July 2008. The report is available to the Minister and was the subject of wide media comment when it was released to the family nearly a year after it was received by the trust.
	It is clear from the report that Fabio should not have been discharged when he first presented to the hospital. Doctors failed to identify the danger of the connection between chickenpox and eczema, and in one of the few points in the report that I would question, it states:
	Dr. (name redacted) was not aware of the association between eczema and chicken pox when he saw Fabio. This is understandable for his level of experience.
	I am alarmed that a senior house officer in paediatrics would not have been aware of the link. It is not clear when the next examination of Fabio by the paediatric registrar took place or whether he or she was made aware of Fabio's eczema. It was this examination, unrecorded in the medical notes, that led to the decision to discharge and also not to treat Fabio with Acyclovir. This is perhaps the moment when Fabio was least well served.
	The report also considers the care given to Fabio when he was brought back to East Surrey hospital by ambulance on the morning of Sunday 17 February. For this period the report identifies 39 areas of clinical concern and 15 serious points for the doctors on duty. It also records two areas of notable practice. Overall the report is excoriating about the record maintenance and the failure of nurses and junior doctors to challenge inappropriate conclusions by more senior medical staff.
	The overall conclusions of the review panel bear repeating:
	Fabio was presented to ESH
	that is, East Surrey hospital
	on 14th February 2008. He should have been admitted and treated aggressively for his chicken pox at that point.
	Fabio re-presented to ESH on 17th February 2008. Overall there was a lack of recognition on the part of the nursing and medical staff how sick Fabio was. The focus of attention was on Fabio's skin, rather than the whole picture, until the morning of 18th February.
	I was struck by the comment on page 24 of the report that
	it was clear that even three months after the event, staff were clearly still traumatized, remembering every detail of the event and questioning their own abilities.
	Although I am now satisfied that weaknesses in the initial internal report have been identified, they may have effected the subsequent coroner's report. The trust commissioned the external report and I am satisfied that it has taken it seriously and is implementing a comprehensive plan to address areas of concern.
	However, there are wider issues that are the responsibility of the Minister and her Department. First, on page 5 of the external report, the Darent Valley team lays down a clear recommendation for the Government:
	It is clear that a recent alert (July 2007) regarding the virulence of the chickenpox virus from the regional PICU
	that is, paediatric intensive care unit
	and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) were not disseminated. If they were it would have provided an added safety net and alerted GPs, AE and Paediatric staff to the risks of deaths associated with extensive chickenpox.
	Secondly, I draw to the Minister's attention the recommendation that there should be a process for investigating the primary care alongside the hospital care. It was not the hospital alone that failed Fabio, but I have not seen an equivalent forensic dissection of decisions made at primary care level. The failure of the GP practice to be alert to the potential complications arising from chickenpox from conditions such as eczema is an oversight that would strike most people as unacceptable.
	Thirdly, if there is one simple lesson to be drawn from Fabio's death it is that all children whose chickenpox prompts their parents to seek medical advice should be checked for eczema. I would be grateful for the Minister's reassurance that that will be re-communicated through the NHS, including to NHS Direct operators' drop-down screens.
	It may be in that respect that Fabio's tragic story has already saved a life. The first substantive paragraph of the external report states:
	We believe that credit should be given to the Trust in taking the decision to invite an external opinion in order to learn from the very sad death of a 5 year old child. As such we would like to thank you for the opportunity this review has given to our paediatric team to examine practice and learn lessons which we can take back to our own services.
	In September this year, after a follow-up article in the  Daily Mail, this message was posted on  Mail Online by a Julie Knox of Gravesend:
	My heart broke reading this story especially as it so easily could have been my daughter if it wasn't for the fantastic care she received at Darent Valley Hospital. About 3 weeks after recovering from chickenpox, my 4 year old daughters eczema became inflamed with more chickenpox like blisters. She was referred to the childrens ward by my doctor and they admitted her for 4 days where she received
	intravenous
	antibiotics and anti-viral drugs. A week or so after coming home, she had another flare up but because my doctor was aware of what had gone on, she was put on a further course of antibiotics to clear it up. She was diagnosed with a super infection of the eczema (viral and bacterial). Her body had gone into toxic shock and we will be forever thankful that the hospital acted so quickly...My deepest sympathies go to Fabio's family.
	Of course, it was Darent Valley's paediatric team which conducted the inquiry more than a year earlier.
	One of the least satisfactory parts of the story is that of the coroner. Ricardo Nunes was denied the chance to give evidence, but Anna was called, despite the fact that they were with Fabio at different times. I am particularly concerned that the coroner reached his verdict 12 days ahead of the presentation of the external report to the trust. It is clear that the coroner would not have had the time or expertise to achieve the same level of detail or reach the same conclusions as the external team. He should have been able to draw from that report's findings.
	It has been put to me that the coroner had access to the same information as the external inquiry. However, to suggest that the coroner would not have been assisted by the product of three months' work by experts is plainly ludicrous. I am sure that the Minister will not want to advance that argument. I would be grateful if she communicated my concerns to the Ministry of Justice and sought a review of the handling of Fabio's case, and invite her colleague to answer the points that I have raised this evening.
	The parents were advised that it would be unwise to challenge the coroner's conclusion of death by natural causes because it would alter nothing. That may be true, but I do not regard the verdict or the process as satisfactory. Fabio's parents were represented pro bono and appealing to the High Court for a judicial review was simply not a practical option.
	The cause of Fabio's death was the lack of care and the lack of appropriate intervention to treat his naturally developing fatal conditionthe serious eczema combined with a virulent strain of chickenpox. I understand that a narrative verdict or a verdict of misadventure may have been possible. Given that the coroner did not see the external report, I find it distasteful that the trust stands by his verdict, despite acknowledging the
	missed opportunity in intervening earlier in Fabio's case.
	Any suggestion that Fabio was going to die anyway is simply wrong. The papers prepared for the trust's Healthcare Governance Committee in July this year, particularly the overview, make offensive reading, emphasising the coroner's verdict and the parents' decision to take the medical advice offered when they took Fabio home.
	Finally, I wish to raise the issue of how hospitals help bereaved parents. It seems clear that the key elements of the trusts Being Open policy were not followed. On page 3, the policy states:
	Communication should be timely.
	Copying the parents into the external report more than 10 months after it was received was, I am afraid, disgraceful. It also says:
	Patients and their carers should also be provided with support in a manner appropriate to their needs, such as a translator or independent patient advocate.
	One of the reasons given for the Being Open policy is to prevent formal complaints and litigation claims. I fear that this principle underpinned the approach to the Nunes family, rather than the compelling reasons of improving understanding of the dangers exposed by this case and helping the family to cope better with the effects of Fabio's loss.
	The family has been paid the full amount they requested in compensation, having resisted the temptation, in the words of some commentators, to sue the socks off the hospital. However, it is quite wrong that a process for helping bereaved parents should be geared to avoiding litigationthat should not be its purpose. When I tried to work out the sort of support that patients should receive, I discovered that it existed in the form of the trust's patient advice and liaison service. I understand this to be a patient's friend or an honest broker set up to be at one remove from the interests of the hospital trust. However, this service falls away once the issue becomes a complaint or the subject of likely legal action. So, the worse the problem, the less likely it is that that excellent approach will be used. Understandably, Ricardo's first contact with the hospital after his son's death made it clear there would be a complaint, so he was dealt with by the complaints department, which understandably has a different outlook from that of PALS.
	In such cases as Fabio's, legal action and formal complaints are highly likely, if not inevitable. Bereaved parents should not have to grope towards getting the appropriate advice through whatever means are available to them. When they are reduced to having to use the media as a lever, then we have all failed. Does the Minister agree with me that PALS should be there for the patient, at one remove from the interests of the trust in defending its reputation and that of its employees, throughout the process?
	Unsurprisingly, a case as tragic as Fabio's has led many to reflect on what might have been. An anonymous nurse posted this in response to Fabio's story:
	As a nurse, stories like this make me ashamed to work for the NHS. All too often us ward nurses have concerns about sending patients home, only to be over ruled by medical staff and nursing management who only see a snapshot of the patient, you don't need to work in the healthcare profession to see that this case of chicken pox is far from routine. As a parent I have also been given bad advice from GPs and have had a patient almost die of septicaemia after being told by a GP receptionist to take paracetamol and drink plenty of fluids. My advice, never take advice from a receptionist and stand your ground. I hate to say it, but those that shout loudest usually get the treatment.
	Just try to remember some of us nurses and doctors really do work hard and care an awful lot.
	I hope and believe that this nurse is too hard on her profession, but there are in this case a number of junior doctors, senior house officers, registrars, consultants, nurses and matrons, along with GPs and receptionists, who share that desire to put the clock back.
	There are only losers in the story of how Fabio died. But the Minister can help to ensure that there may be winners from the lessons learned. I think that there already may be onethe little girl from the Knox family in Gravesend. I hope there will be other children who might now benefit from better practice and a better understanding of the risks of chicken pox. And I hope that we will never again see the distressing pictures of Fabio repeated in the case of another child.